Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EXETER CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

MID GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 2 December.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Advanced Technology

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on investment in advanced technology in industry in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): The Government offer a range of incentives to encourage efficient production. In 1985–86 over £54 million was paid in grants, supporting investment by industry in research, development and re-equipment of £181 million.

Mr. Brown: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Northern Ireland Office and to welcome him to his responsibilities at the Dispatch Box? My pleasure is tinged with sadness because I now no longer have the pleasure of sharing an office with him. I wish him well in his duties.
Does my hon. Friend agree that investment in advanced technology in Northern Ireland is the right way forward for industrial success in the Province and that that will generate higher employment there? Will he assure us that the Government will give the highest priority to the matter?

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is indeed an honour to serve in the Northern Ireland Office and a pleasure to do so with the present ministerial team.
More companies are accepting change as a way of life in business, and that augers well for the future. The Government provide considerable assistance—up to 50 per cent. or £250,000 for each project—for approved research and development, and 133 companies have taken advantage of that scheme.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the first year of operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): We have made steady progress. In particular, we have laid the foundation for closer co-operation on cross-border security and extradition arrangements, and we have discussed a number of matters concerned with increasing the confidence of the minority community in the institutions of government in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Archer: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many on both sides of the water welcome the agreement as a recognition that two Governments in one island necessarily have many interests in common and hope to see real benefits for people in both traditions? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that they want to applaud the agreement? I note what the right hon. Gentleman said, but when will he be able to point to some demonstrable dividends in the areas of job creation, equal opportunities, accountable local government and civil liberties?

Mr. King: We are seeking to make progress on a range of fronts. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's impatience in a number of areas, but he will know that some of the issues with which we are grappling are extremely complex and controversial, as they have been over the years, and, although many would like to go faster, the foundations have been laid for progress. For example, we have published an important consultation paper on equality of employment opportunities. We now see the setting up of the international fund, and only last night the House approved the amendment to the extradition treaty with the United States, which I am confident would not have gone forward as it has done without the existence of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Only this week we have seen the tabling in the Dail of the proposed Bill to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. Progress is now being made across a wide range.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has the penalty of transportation to Australia been revived for Sir Robert Armstrong for his part in the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Is it the case that no Northern Ireland civil servants, as distinct from United Kingdom civil servants, had any part in the drawing up of that agreement?

Mr. King: I had better not tiptoe into the first part of that question, but I am sure that we shall welcome back Sir Robert Armstrong, whenever that may be. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is no.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Five weeks ago the Secretary of State told the House, in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that he expected the Irish Republic's ratification of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism to go forward shortly. Has something gone wrong?

Mr. King: No, Sir. The Irish Minister of Justice signed the ratification document some time ago. However, the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Bill was tabled in the Dail, thus commencing its parliamentary procedures, only this week.

Mr. Colvin: The House no doubt welcomes my right hon. Friend's recollection that one of the prime objectives


of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is greater cross-border co-operation on security matters. Will my right hon. Friend therefore get the message through to the Garda that Sundays are work days for the IRA? What was the Garda doing about patrolling the south side of the border last Sunday, at Middletown, when members of my old regiment were mortar bombed by the IRA?

Mr. King: I fully share my hon. Friend's concern about that incident and, indeed, I telephoned the Irish Minister of Justice about it on Sunday, but one must be fair and recognise that we are talking about, as far as I am aware, the first mortar attack to have taken place from the Irish Republic. I know that my hon. Friend would pay tribute to the security forces and to their efforts in Northern Ireland, but despite all our intensive efforts we have not been wholly successful in preventing mortar attacks that have been launched from within Northern Ireland. Obviously the attack mentioned by my hon. Friend was a very serious attack, and I take a very grave view of it. However, everyone in Northern Ireland will be most appreciative of the fact that the Garda only recently discovered two complete and fully-primed mortar sets which might otherwise have caused serious disruption.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that a continuing improvement in security is a crucial factor if the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to be seen to succeed. Consequently, what improvement has there been in security co-operation between the RUC and the Garda in the past 12 months, particularly in connection with cross-border operations?

Mr. King: There is now a completely agreed detailed threat assessment. There has been agreement between the Garda and the RUC on co-operation on intelligence matters and the methods to be used. A considerable amount of work is going on in connection with organisation, structure and communications. However, I know that the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge, will understand when I say that I am not prepared to go into that in detail in public. I am satisfied with the advice that I have received, which is that because of closer co-operation we now have the best prospect of dealing more effectively with cross-border terrorism.

Mr. Gow: Does not the experience of the first 12 months show that instead of peace there has been strife, instead of stability, turmoil, and instead of reconciliation, added sectarian suspicion and division? What progress has my right hon. Friend made in securing from the majority community acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. King: Obviously, I fully share the concern felt about the tensions and difficulties that exist within the Province, but my hon. Friend knows the history of Northern Ireland too well to suggest that somehow divisions and strife have suddenly broken out during the past year. We seek to move away from a tragic background that has existed for so many years, for whatever period my hon. Friend may select—say, for the past 17 years. The agreement genuinely offers a way forward, albeit in the face of tensions and deliberate opposition from interests which have never been prepared to accept any compromise or any move forward, whatever the direction. We can at last see a way forward that could work.
I say to those of my hon. Friends who share concerns about this matter that we must seek a positive way

forward. My hon. Friend knows that the agreement is not the threat to the Union that some would seek to present it as being. There is no risk of a united Ireland being imposed by force. The reality is that the agreement offers us a way of seeing, with good will and co-operation, a happier future for the people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State tell the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who was complaining about imperfect security on the border, that the border is the same length on both sides? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the recommendation made yesterday by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights, a Government-appointed body, that to improve public perceptions of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland there should be three judges in the Diplock courts instead of one? Will the right hon. Gentleman take that recommendation into account in considering how the administration of justice, which he admits he is trying to improve, can be improved?

Mr. King: I shall certainly take note of the report. The hon. Gentleman will know that it was not a unanimous one, there being a note of dissident by two members of the standing advisory committee. The report does not question in any sense the quality of justice in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it points out the real problems that could exist. There is the idea that this is merely a matter of political attitudes, but there are real and practical problems. I can confirm that the matter is likely to be on the agenda for further discussion, and we have made no secret of our concern about the difficulties that exist.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is it not the position that 12 months after the conclusion of the Anglo-Irish Agreement the majority community remains unalterably opposed to it? Does my right hon. Friend not consider that the best way forward is to find an agreement that is acceptable to the majority and in accordance with democratic principles, as well as being fair to the minority?

Mr. King: The objective of successive British Governments has been precisely that, but there has been an unwillingness by one party after another to entertain the proposals of successive Governments. Each party is equally guilty within the Northern Ireland scene of abstaining at one stage or another from the various initiatives that we have taken to try to find some way forward that would offer more positive opportunities. I regret the present attitude of the majority community, but my hon. Friend will recognise that while people may be critical one year about of a lack of achievement, they cannot be ignorant of the fact that many of the allegations, fears and misrepresentations that existed at the start of the agreement have been proved to be manifestly false. I hope that he will give us credit for that.

Local Authorities (Discussions)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has held with representatives of local authorities in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Since 1 July Ministers held 16 meetings with groups that have included members of district councils. These meetings have enabled us to discuss a wide range of public service matters. I


greatly regret that Unionist Members have failed to put ther views to me and my colleagues about matters affecting their constituents.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that some Unionist Members have been in the House to report their views to other hon. Members, and that that was a welcome initiative? Is he aware also that there is considerable interest in the possibility of developing local representative democracy, even if there is a stalemate on central institutions of government, to strengthen local control over local decision making?

Mr. Needham: I am glad to confirm that, as part of the devolution package which the Government have long put forward, that would certainly be well worth considering. If only members of the majority coummunity were prepared to come into negotiation with Ministers, including my ministerial colleagues, that is something that we would wish to consider.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the present position is completely unsatisfactory as a long-term objective? In effect, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is acting as viceroy, the local authorities have no powers, and those who are supposed to come to this place to represent their constituents do not come.

Mr. Needham: It is a great pity that local representatives do not come to this place, and responsibilities go considerably wider than I would wish. As I have said before, it is extremely important in negotiating any package of devolution that we do so on the broadest possible scale.

Mr. Bell: We welcome the prospect of devolution in Northern Ireland and any talks to that effect. Will the Minister confirm that any talks held with representatives of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland will not mean the suspension of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. Needham: I shall speak to anybody who comes to my door. It will be done under the exising framework of government. I only wish that they would try to find a way to my door.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time may well be right to consider setting up in Northern Ireland a similar structure of local government to that which obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom, the more so since there is no longer the Assembly?

Mr. Needham: As I said, if it is part of a package of devolution measures, I am sure that it would make sense. I would be only too happy to devolve some of my existing responsibilities, which I am sure many of the people in Northern Ireland think are already too heavy.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will be in a position to make a statement on the inquiry by Mr. Colin Sampson into matters connected with the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make a statement on the Sampson report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Tom King: I reported to the House on 23 October the progress being made by Mr. Sampson. I shall at the earliest appropriate time make a statement on any matters arising from the report that fall within my responsibilities.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister not realise that the slowness of the Government to react in a democratic manner by clearing the air when there has been wide publicity everywhere leads people to think that their suspicions that the Government are concealing something are very real? Why, in Heaven's name, have the Government subjected the deputy chief constable of Manchester to all that suspicion, and his family and another family and large numbers of people to misery, when they can clear the air by giving a proper report about what has happened so far?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman can ask a question, such as that only if he is completely oblivious of my previous answer. He appears to be unaware that Mr. Sampson's report came forward on 22 October. It has been with the Chief Constable. It is now with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The second report will be coming forward shortly. Those are obviously serious matters, which may lead to criminal proceedings. There is no question of the Government jumping in and reaching arbitrary decisions in advance. There are proper procedures which have to be observed. The proper process of law will be carried through. I have made clear my concern that the matter should be proceeded with at the earliest opportunity and that there should be no avoidable delay. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the matter of the deputy chief constable of Manchester is nothing to do with me, but is entirely for the Manchester police authority.

Mr. Lloyd: The Secretary of State must recognise that taking the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester out of that inquiry led to the widespread belief that there was some kind of conspiracy, some attempt to cover up, or some attempt to ensure that the areas he was investigating were not reached. The Secretary of State must recognise the major concern, not just on this side of the water, but in Ireland as well, about those consequences. Can he guarantee that he will be prepared to give the very fullest account of the mechanisms by which John Stalker was taken out of the inquiry and the responsibilities of those involved in Her Majesty's Inspectorate on both sides of the water?

Mr. King: I bitterly regret the fact that the inquiry could not have proceeded much more speedily and that there was this unfortunate interruption. The hon. Gentleman seems equally unaware of the background and procedures. The position simply was that the inquiry was proceeding at the request of the Chief Constable of the RUC, who had appointed Mr. Stalker to head that inquiry. He then received information from the Chief Constable of Manchester that Mr. Stalker was no longer available to continue the inquiry. Against that background, the Chief Constable of the RUC took immediate steps to ensure that the inquiry proceeded by appointing somebody else to continue to conduct it. The question about the suspension of Mr. Stalker was a decision taken in Manchester by the Manchester police authority. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Hawksley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the inquiry has been carried out thoroughly and professionally?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible at this stage to reach that judgment. The reports have been with the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have not yet seen the first report. The second report will be coming forward shortly. I shall want to address a number of matters, if appropriate, and make a statement to the House on them. Obviously, this is part of the background that I shall want to consider.

Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will be aware that six people from County Armagh were killed in those incidents in 1982. Does he agree that a four-year lapse before inquests are held would not be tolerated in any other part of this jurisdiction? Does he further agree that until this matter is cleared up in a positive and just way the only losers in this whole saga will have been those people who were killed, their relatives and the RUC?

Mr. King: These incidents, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, relate to matters that took place four years ago. As I made clear earlier, I am most concerned that these matters should be resolved and any appropriate decisions taken at the earliest opportunity. There is no benefit whatsoever in delay.

Divis Housing

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to involve the residents of Divis and the local community in decisions on the rehousing of residents following the demolition of the Divis flats.

Mr. Needham: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, I have been informed by the chairman that staff from the Housing Executive's Belfast region have already met the Divis Residents Association and other local groups and have arranged for continuing regular meetings to consult on the detailed development of plans for that area.

Mr. Duffy: Lest the punishment regime of the people of the Divis community appears to be unduly prolonged, will the Minister urge on the Housing Executive the need to start the demolition and new building as soon as possible? Will he ensure that there is the earliest possible consultation?

Mr. Needham: Of course, now that the decision has been made, it would be the desire of all of us to see the Divis blocks removed as quickly as possible. However, I must stress that that will take a considerable period of years because of the problems of space and of money. I shall ensure, of course, that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive enters into close consultation. I shall keep a close eye on the matter, but it is the responsibility of the Housing Executive.

Ms. Clare Short: I heard the Minister say "Now that the decision has been made". Is he aware that the residents of the Divis fear that the Housing Executive might go back on its promise to demolish the Divis flats? Will he give an absolute undertaking that that will not happen? Will he consider his Department arranging a grant to the Town and Country Planning Association to continue its work with the Divis residents to come up with plans for rebuilding that are acceptable to the people currently living in the Divis flats?

Mr. Needham: I assure the hon. Lady that I do not think that there is any chance of the Housing Executive

going back on its recommendations. I can see no possible reason why it should do that. In relation to the second part of the hon. Lady's question, consultation with the Divis Residents Association is a duty of the Housing Executive. I am sure that it will do that adequately and professionally.

Higher Education

Mr. Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure on university education in Northern Ireland is planned for the financial year 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The Government will provide £72 million for the two universities and the Open University in 1986–87. Details of provision for 1987–88 are not yet available, but I will ensure that the University Grants Committee, in its advice to the Department of Education on the appropriate grant allocations to the two universities, will take account of the additional resources for universities recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Bell: While the education community in Northern Ireland will welcome the Minister's £72 million forecast of expenditure, what is the Minister to make of the forecast that Queens university is to face cuts in recurrent resources over the next four years of about £5·2 million? Does he agree that the economic and industrial base of Northern Ireland is less than it is in Great Britain, and that research income is not likely to be forthcoming? If monetarism is as dead as a dodo on the mainland, why should it be flourishing in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Mawhinney: I can confirm that the grant to Queens university will increase by some 10 per cent. below the average uplift provided for the system over that period. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the university, as an autonomous institution, has to determine how to match its provision with the resources provided. The hon. Gentleman will be aware—and if not I can give him the information—of the steps that the university is taking to broaden its base as a United Kingdom university and to seek industrial funds to help its research programme.

Mr. Hume: As higher education in Northern Ireland has recently been reorganised and a new university campus established in Derry, does the Minister agree that it would be unfortunate and unfair if, at such an early stage, the new campus were subject to severe cuts which would hinder developments that have been guaranteed? Will he ensure that that does not happen?

Dr. Mawhinney: As I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows, the increase for the University of Ulster for 1986–87 is 4·9 per cent., which is above the rate of inflation. In the period covered by the main question the increase for the University of Ulster will be 16 per cent. above the average.

Administration of Justice

Mr. Soley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans exist for changes in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): A number of changes in the system have been implemented in the last year or so, including the introduction of measures to eliminate avoidable delays between first remand and trial and the making of an order to increase the Attorney-General's discretion to certify that in particular cases scheduled offences should be tried before juries.
The Government have also announced their intention to introduce legislation in the current parliamentary Session to amend the emergency legislation which applies to Northern Ireland. I am fully seized of the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice, and this is a matter that we keep under constant review.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister agree that there is something to be said for accepting Sir George Baker's recommendations on restoration of trial by jury, which do not go much further than we have gone already? Is he aware that it would be welcome if he went at least that far, or even, in my view, rather further? Will he also give a commitment that the supergrass trial system will be stopped in the near future, as it is undermining confidence in both the Republican and the Unionist community?

Mr. Scott: Bearing in mind the situation in Northern Ireland, it is important that the Government should seek continuously to ensure that the changes that are necessary in the Province to deal with the administration of justice vary as little as possible from the system in Great Britain. When our Bill on the emergency legislation is introduced, the hon. Gentleman will see that we are going a little further in that direction, and we are continually looking for further improvements.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that recent calls for changes in the nature of the Northern Ireland judiciary have been misguided? Does he agree that it is essential to maitain the Diplock system and that we should pay tribute to the judges in every court in Northern Ireland for the impartial way in which they administer justice in the most difficult circumstances imaginable?

Mr. Scott: I echo wholeheartedly my hon. Friend's tribute to the judges and others involved in the administration of justice in the Province in most difficult and trying circumstances. Nevertheless, we must always look for improvements. As my hon. Friend knows, the administration of justice is on the agenda for the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware of the activities of some Members of this House in strutting along the streets of Northern Ireland in red berets, forming armies and provoking people to further violence? When will positive legislation be introduced to deal with incitement to violence or hatred by the spoken word, by marches or by the use of any emblem?

Mr. Scott: I am certainly concerned about some displays that have taken place in Northern Ireland, but it is very much a matter for the police, the prosecuting authorities and, in due course, the courts to decide whether there has been a breach of the law. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we propose to introduce a public order order covering some of the matters to which he referred. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement about that in the not too distant future.

Regional Health Boards

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has plans to meet the chairmen of the regional health boards in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Needham: I plan to meet the chairmen of health and social services boards early in the new year to discuss the regional strategic plan for the development of services over the next five years.

Mr. Dubs: When the Minister meets the chairman of the boards, will he stop pressing or obliging them to privatise hospital ancillary services? Does he accept that the real problems arise because there is a need for more resources for the Health Service in Northern Ireland? Will he halt attempts by the Government to increase the profits of private suppliers at the expense of patients?

Mr. Needham: There are considerably more resources in the Health Service in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I am delighted that that is so. There has been no sudden change in our policy to increase pressure to privatise. We are continuing with the policy that we introduced two years ago. The requirements are the same as for the rest of the United Kingdom. We are testing the effectiveness of services on the public side of the Health Service against the private sector. Due to the smallness of the private sector in Northern Ireland, there are not that many facilities—unfortunately, in my view—that are likely to be privatised. Nevertheless, as a result of our policies, substantial savings have been made and these have led to an increase in the amount of money available to assist in the care of patients.

Mr. Archer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has not noticed all the furore over the past few weeks about privatisation? Is it not the case that any savings from privatisation will come from cutting jobs, squeezing wage rates, reducing the number of hours for which people are paid and sacrificing services? Does he maintain that that is the way to maintain the standards of service to patients?

Mr. Needham: I do not know where the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the last few weeks, but I suspect that he has not been very near Northern Ireland, because there has been no furore there about these matters. I have explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are continuing with the policy that we adopted two years ago, and as a result of that policy we have made substantial and sensible savings that have benefited the patients and clients of the Health Service in Northern Ireland. We shall continue with that policy.

Smaller Businesses

Mr. Bellingham: asked the Ssecretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage smaller businesses in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Viggers: The Government provide a comprehensive range of assistance, training and support to encourage the small business sector. I recently announced an increase in the budget of the Local Enterprise Development Unit from £17 million to £21 million a year in order to enable it to provide further assistance for the development of existing small firms.

Mr. Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that after the devastating announcement by Harland and Wolff it is


more important than ever to encourage indigenous entrepreneurs and community-based small businesses? Will he do what he can to support the enterprise allowance scheme and local enterprise programmes?

Mr. Viggers: In connection with the first point raised by my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the adaptability of the management and the work force at Harland and Wolff and wish them well in winning further orders, because that is the only way forward for the company. My hon. Friend also spoke about the local enterprise programme and the enterprise allowance scheme. I pay tribute to the large number of business men, academics, trade unionists and others who give their voluntary efforts to a number of groups and schemes to promote enterprise and employment. Their practical assistance and guidance are of special value in encouraging smaller businesses.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Following the 800 redundancies at Harland and Wolff, is there not a great danger that that company will become one of the smaller businesses which the Minister is supposed to be encouraging? Will he give a commitment to continue to provide financial assistance to Harland and Wolff to enable it to get Ministry of Defence work?

Mr. Viggers: The Government have shown their commitment to Harland and Wolff in the announcement made yesterday about the large external financing limit. The way ahead for Harland and Wolff is to win further orders, and the company is very efficient and in a good position to do that.

Mr. Bell: Some 800 men will lose their jobs at Harland and Wolff. Is that not a direct consequence of Tory policies? The Tory onslaught on the Northern Ireland economy is affecting the lives of ordinary men and women there, and that is why 800 men at Harland and Wolff have lost their jobs.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is less than fair. The Government have shown their commitment to Harland and Wolff. We have a high regard for the management of the company and wish it well.

Irish Republican Army

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list the known sources of funding of the Irish Republican Army as communicated to his office.

Mr. Scott: The main sources of finance for the Provisional IRA are believed to be the profits gained from paramilitary-controlled social clubs and gaming machines, extortion and protection rackets, frauds, armed robberies throughout Ireland, commercial enterprises run for the benefit of paramilitaries, and overseas contributions.
The Government are naturally anxious to cut off all potential sources of financial support for terrorism and have introduced a number of measures to this end in recent years. In addition, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has established a special squad to draw together all police activity against organised crime. This has already met with notable success.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why did the Minister not place the proceeds from kidnapping on that list?

Mr. Scott: There is no reason to believe that kidnap payments are a regular or major source of finance for the Provisional IRA.

Viscount Cranborne: Has my hon. Frend had any discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to try to control the amount of funds coming to the IRA from south of the border?

Mr. Scott: We are determined to see that, through co-operation with the authorities throughout Ireland, security forces as well as Government Departments, we block off all sources as quickly as possible.

Mr. Mason: Surely the worst culprit in regularly financing the Provisional IRA both with cash and arms is Noraid and its organisations in the United States of America. Will the Minister therefore enlighten the House about the extent to which it is still annually financing the provisional IRA?

Mr. Scott: To far too great an extent. I have to say that we are getting very good co-operation from the American Administration and law enforcement agencies on the other side of the Atlantic, both in controlling Noraid as an organisation, monitoring its accounts, and in ensuring that money is not used to buy arms to murder Irishmen north and south of the border.

Mr. Gow: What evidence does my hon. Friend have to show that the Governments of Syria and Libya are involved in supplying money and arms to the IRA or are conniving to do so?

Mr. Scott: There is clear evidence that over the years Libya has been supplying both money and arms to the IRA. We continue to seek to monitor that and to prevent such arms or such money from reaching the IRA.

Security

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 23 October, one police officer and two civilians have died as a result of the security situation in the Province.
So far this year, 576 people have been charged with serious offences and 197 weapons, 28,000 rounds of ammunition and 4,000 1b of explosives have been recovered.
The security forces displayed great skill, patience and professionalism in dealing with demonstrations in various parts of the Province. Despite disgraceful behaviour by some sections of the crowds, serious disorder was generally averted.

Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a mass resignation of councillors will only increase tension and make the job of the security forces more difficult?

Mr. King: I certainly would say that I have never quite understood the point of resigning and allowing the people whom one sought to oppose and stood against at an election to take over one's responsibilities, which otherwise they would not have had a chance to do. I certainly think that there is a valuable role for people to play within the government in Northern Ireland.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem of security in Northern Ireland is not helped when the leader and deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist party openly incite loyalist paramilitary organisations to violence? When will he and the Prime Minister start treating the leadership of that party exactly as they treat Sinn Fein? The only difference is that one takes the money but does not come here, while the other does not take the money and does not come here.

Mr. King: We are absolutely satisfied that the security forces, particularly the RUC, will take appropriate action if offences such as those described by the hon. Lady are committed. It is the duty of all people in constitutional parties within Northern Ireland to support the security forces, and I hope that members of the SDLP will reconsider very directly the comments they have made about support for the RUC, and make absolutely unequivocal their support for it.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the security forces, police and Army, have been (a) murdered and (b) injured in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott: As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement, I shall, with permission, Mr. Speaker, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend look back with regret at the growing number of members of the security forces and others within Northern Ireland who have been tragically murdered in the past five years? Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest problem with maintaining cross-border security is that many of our security forces have been deterred from preventing incursions breaching cross-border security because of the Ulster Resistance Movement's activities under the leadership of the leader of the Democratic Unionist party? Should we not try to stop the security people from being taken away from the important task of protecting our borders, thus ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland are properly protected? Should we not be prepared to stand up and protect this country and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Scott: I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Those who engage in street disorder and demonstrations divert the RUC from its task of fighting terrorism and are not contributing to the peace and security of the Province.

Following is the table:

The information in respect of members of the security forces killed and injured in Northern Ireland due to civil unrest in each of the past five years is as follows:

Deaths
Injuries



RUC
Army
RUC
Army


1982
12
28
99
98


1983
18
15
142
88


1984
9
19
267
86


1985
23
6
415
33


19861
12
12
552
45


1To date.

Note: RUC figures include the RUC Reserve and the Army figures include the UDR.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Tom King: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to a question by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) earlier today.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Was it at the Intergovernmental Conference that Mr. Peter Barry was helpful enough to recommend enlistment for the RUC? Was it not then deplorable for the SDLP to give contrary advice? Does not the Anglo-Irish Agreement please it, either?

Mr. King: It was in a public broadcast that the Irish Foreign Minister made absolutely clear his support, not only for the Catholic minority community joining the RUC, but for supporting the institutions of government in the Province. I very much welcomed that statement, and, as I made clear in an earlier answer, I very much hope that the SDLP will support it as well.

Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State accept that a considerable factor in the violence over the past 12 months has been a deliberate campaign organised by elements of the Loyalist community to blackmail the Government to back down from decisions which have overwhelmingly been endorsed in the House?

Mr. King: I am certainly aware of the attempts of certain people to intimidate the Government and the security forces. I am also aware of the outstanding role that the RUC has played in defending minority communities against violence. It is scant recompense for the RUC not to receive the support and approval of the SDLP.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Heddle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Heddle: Do not all those who work for British intelligence owe a life-long duty of confidentiality to the Crown? Is it not the duty of the Government of the day and of Opposition parties to uphold that fundamental principle and not to relegate it for party political purposes?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Hitherto, Governments of all parties have upheld that fundamental principle. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the security service would be undermined. I pay tribute to the overwhelming majority of those in the security service who recognise their obligations and duty of confidentiality.

Mr. Kinnock: May I warmly endorse both the last question and answer? Will the Prime Minister tell us, whether the decision not to impede publication of Mr.


Pincher's book in 1981 was taken personally by the Attorney-General, whether the decision to put Sir Robert Armstrong in court in Australia, was taken personally by the Attorney-General?

The Prime Minister: As I said to the House last Thursday, it would be inappropriate for me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—to comment on matters which may arise in the proceedings concerning the Peter Wright case in Australia while those proceedings continue. On the general question of security matters, I shall follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers and, I understand, set out in "Erskine May", of not commenting on security matters.

Mr. Kinnock: This is a specific question about the decisions and responsibilities inside the Government that has no implication whatsoever for matters of national security. Although it does not raise questions about national security, it raises questions about the competence and integrity of the Government. Will the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? Did the Attorney-General personally take either or both of those decisions? In these matters, has the Attorney-General been a fool or a fall guy?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's question is totally unworthy. [HON MEMBERS: "Answer."] On the general question of security, I shall follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers and, I understand, upheld in "Erskine May", of not commenting on security matters.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister must, then, now explain what is the implication for national security of telling us whether it was an individual member of her Government who personally—not nominally and formally, but personally—took a decision that has a direct effect on the integrity of national security in this country.

The Prime Minister: The Government, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are indivisible. [Interruption.] The decisions are decisions of the Government and not of particular Ministers. If he wishes to table a motion of censure, he is fully entitled to do so.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware, when she is today considering some of the nonsense on security matters appearing on the Order Paper, that one of the names on the Order Paper is that of Sir Arthur Franks, who is a most distinguished public servant with a gallant war record? Any innuendoes against such persons under the cloak of parliamentary privilege are disgraceful.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. How the Order Paper is treated is a matter for the House of Commons.

Dr. Owen: As it was the Prime Minister who broke the precedent of all previous Prime Ministers when she answered questions on the Floor of the House on security issues, will she now reconsider the necessity for the House to have a better way of scrutinising the security services than using the Order Paper or the Floor of the House of Commons? The right hon. Lady has been offered the opportunity to move this issue away from partisanship and to put it into a Select Committee made up of right hon. and hon. Members of both parties. In that way, the sort of exchange to which the Prime Minister has objected could be overcome.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman often proposes in Opposition what he did not have in office. We understand why—he is doing it for party political reasons. I repeat: the practice and custom of all Prime Ministers of all parties is to adhere to the normal rule of not commenting on security matters. That practice is upheld in "Erskine May", and I shall follow it.

Mr. Aitken: In view of the increasing difficulties created by the judge's rulings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the time has come for the Government to impose a moratorium on all legal activities relevant to historical matters concerned with the late Sir Roger Hollis? Instead, will she consider asking the Security Commission to review any continuing security problems from that era and make recommendations to Parliament, first, on how best to preserve the duty of confidentiality among retired security officers who live overseas and, secondly, on how best to install some form of permanent oversight body which might stop this type of nonsense from ever happening again?

The Prime Minister: I think that the practice has been the right one. The Government are concerned with upholding the principle of confidentiality and the obligations of staff, without which there can be no effective security service. We are discussing the need to have a continuing, effective security service. Those who wish to continue to have an effective security service understand the need not to discuss these matters in the House of Commons. Other people have secret services. It is a difficult problem, but I believe that the path taken by previous Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries and, indeed, previous Foreign Secretaries, while they have been in office has been the correct one.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wardell: Did the Prime Minister discuss in 1980 or 1981 the likely contents of Peter Wright's book, or any allegations being made by him, with Lord Rothschild?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add—[Interruption.]—to the replies which I have previously given. If the hon. Gentleman looks in "Erskine May", he will see that my reply is upheld there.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shepherd: During her busy day, will the Prime Minister consider the £1 million war chest set up by Flexilink to seek to undermine investor confidence in the Channel tunnel? Does she agree that the £700 million worth of manufacturing equipment which will be needed for that project and which is capable of being supplied by areas of traditionally high employment—traditional heavy industry—is a far greater prize for the nation?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the Channel tunnel offers very exciting employment possibilities. It is a billion pound project which, if it goes ahead, will be financed


totally by the private sector. It offers the prospect of many jobs and of better access to continental markets for many of our industries.

Mr. Carter-Jones: May I ask the Prime Minister a question that may unite the House? May I ask the Prime Minister whether she will look at the legislation with regard to attendance allowances and invalidity care allowances as it affects terminal cases? When it passed the legislation, the House did not intend the six-month rule to deny terminal patients their rights, and the rights of the carers and of the organisations that care for them. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that, during her busy schedule today, she will have words with the appropriate Department to get that matter put right?

The Prime Minister: I cannot undertake to do what the hon. Gentleman asks me, to get the matter put right, because I am not quite certain what is the other side of the story. I know, as he knows, that our record on disabled—[Interruption.]—Yes. Our record of spending on benefits for the long-term sick—[Interruption.] Our record on spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled people is up by 55 per cent. in real terms. That is an excellent record of which we are proud, and obviously Opposition Members are trying to shout so that it is not heard where it should be. I shall, of course, put the specific point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Hayes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend join me and some Labour Members in condemning the hijacking of some unemployment centres by Left-wing militants who have turned those centres into hotbeds of political campaigning? Will she undertake to investigate those matters and oust those red riff-raff so that the centres can be used for their proper purpose—to help the unemployed and their families?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is unfortunate that a project funded under the community programme should break clear and sensible rules under which it has accepted funding. I know that Manpower Services Commission officials are currently considering what further steps to take in that matter. I join my hon. Friend in his censure.

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davies: Why does the Prime Minister refuse to close the loopholes that allow unlimited supplies of firearms and ammunition to circulate in this country without restriction? Does she not realise that increasing penalties, as in the Criminal Justice Bill, which is to be debated today, are only part of the answer, and that her response to rising crime will never be adequate until she pays due regard to the causes of crime?

The Prime Minister: By the time one sorted out the causes of crime, one could sort out the fundamental nature

of human nature itself. The view that we have taken is that it is the Government's duty to provide the extra resources. Consequently, we have provided the extra police and the extra equipment on a scale that has never been seen before. With regard to firearms, as the hon. Gentleman says, the Criminal Justice Bill contains provision to increase to life imprisonment the maximum sentence for carrying a firearm in the furtherance of crime.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: During the course of her official duties, will my right hon. Friend consider the date for the next general election? In doing so, will she bear in mind that the former alliance Member of Parliament, Neville Sandelson, has said in The Sunday Times that in every constituency that Labour might conceivably win, alliance supporters should now attune themselves to voting Conservative?

The Prime Minister: The advice is excellent and I should like to endorse it.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Prime Minister inform the House what authority the Attorney-General had to give confidential information from his Department to a Fleet street journalist, Mr. Chapman Pincher? Is she aware that if she fails to answer this question, as she has failed to answer the others, this House and the nation will consider that she has something to hide and that she is frightened?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he can ask me any questions. I am constrained by a court case in which the Government are appearing—[Interruption.] He can ask me any questions and is not constrained, but he knows that I am constrained by the court case in Australia in which the Government are appearing. Therefore, I cannot go any further than I have gone. I notice that he reflects severely on the Attorney-General: a reflection which I totally and utterly condemn.

Mr. Robert Atkins: rose—

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order if they relate directly to questions.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I will take points of order if they relate directly to Question Time. We have two statements: a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science and a Business statement. I will take points of order in their normal place after that time, unless they refer directly to questions today.

Mr. Shore: On a point of order arising out of questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) asked the Prime Minister a direct question about the role of the Attorney-General in dealing with the Chapman Pincher memoirs—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the House that before we start continuing Question Time through points of order, the points made must be something on which I can personally rule.

Mr. Shore: The Prime Minister replied to my right hon. Friend's question by saying that according to "Erskine May" the question fell within a security classification and, therefore, she was entitled not to reply to it. There is an entire list of precedents, a file of precedents, on which such claims can be made according to "Erskine May". I would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would help the House by checking the file and reporting back to us whether the matter comes under the classification of security, under which the Prime Minister is entitled not to answer.
My second point of order arises from another reply from the Prime Minister. She said that her Government were "indivisible" and, therefore, she could not give any separate answer about the role of the Attorney-General. Surely it is a constitutional fact and an accepted principle of the constitution that the Attorney-General has a special position within the Government and gives advice quite separate from the collective decisions of Government? Therefore, he should not be incorporated in the collective views of Government. Surely that is correct.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help. The rules regarding what is admissible, as the Prime Minister mentioned at Question Time, are set out on pages 342–43 of "Erskine May". That is public knowledge and the entire House knows about it. The Prime Minister's answer on the indivisibility of Government is not a matter for me. It is not a matter of order for the Chair.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that a Minister is entitled at any time to refuse to answer any question?

Mr. Robert Atkins: On a point of order relating to Question Time today, yesterday and the day before, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] You asked for points of order relating to questions today, Mr. Speaker, but the matter also applies to questions yesterday and the day before. It has been alleged in some newspapers, and I am advised that it is correct, that matters raised in Question Time today, yesterday and the day before relate to matters happening in Australia at present which are sub judice in Australia. Those matters are being raised as a direct result of communications with the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and with officials in the Leader of the Opposition's office. These matters are sub judice in Australia. Will the matter be allowed to continue to such an extent that anything happening in Australia to which the United Kingdom Government are a party will be raised on the Floor of the House, where disreputable remarks are being made about people who cannot defend themselves?

Mr. Speaker: I think that I dealt clearly with that question yesterday. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look carefully at Hansard and what I have said about the tendency in this place to name people who have no redress, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. I am tied by the rules governing this House. I am not tied by any rules that govern any other Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With characteristic courtesy the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said that he might raise the subject of Sir Arthur Franks. My question

elicited a rather positive answer from the Attorney-General on the subject. I am exceedingly careful how I use the Order Paper—[Interruption.] I defy any hon. Member to say that I have abused the Order Paper in naming individuals. In view of the important answer given by the Attorney-General, I look to you to confirm that my question was legitimate. The Attorney-General would not have answered that he was considering the case unless there had been something to consider. May I have your confirmation that it was not an abuse of the Order Paper to name an individual, in view of the fact that it is an important matter? It appears that some people can brief authors but that others cannot.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that arose from Question Time today, but since the hon. Gentleman has managed to ask his point of order, I shall answer it. He tabled a question which was passed by the Table Office as being in order, so he was entirely correct.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your assurance that the rules of order apply to everybody equally? You may have noticed that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is able to indulge in a great deal of sedentary noise. Would you try to persuade him to let some others of us get in as well?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that the rules of order apply to everyone equally.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Robert Atkins: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take Mr. Skinner first.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments that have been made during the past couple of days, and, more important, by you today about whether motions on the Order Paper are in order, may I remind you that some of us would like to see some stern action taken when Conservative Members attack people at GCHQ by calling them traitors—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not arise from Question Time today.

Sir Anthony Grant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you told us yesterday that the whole question of early-day motions appearing on the Order Paper was to be considered by the Procedure Committee. Without suggesting for a moment that any hon. Member is out of order in the early-day motion that he or she has tabled, would it not bring the House into greater repute if, pending the deliberations of the Procedure Committee, we desisted from naming on the Order Paper individuals who cannot defend themselves?

Mr. Speaker: We have a heavy day before us and I invite the whole House to look carefully at what I said yesterday. I shall repeat it again today. The tendency to name individuals under the cloak of privilege must be treated with the greatest caution. I am tied by the rules on early-day motions as they are at present. Yesterday I mentioned that the Procedure Committee is minded to look at the matter, and I believe that it should certainly do so.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, and with a slightly different version of it, Mr. Speaker. I


understand that it is in order for the Prime Minister to make a reply to the effect that the matter is one concerning security, and that can be made as a political statement even if, under the terms of "Erskine May", it is not covered. Will you confirm that it is open to the Opposition to check the validity of her answer by formally tabling the same question as a written question at the Table Office? If it is a security question, the Table Office will refuse to accept that question, but if it is not a security question, although it has been blocked as a supplementary question today, will the Table Office accept it as a written question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a hypothetical question. If a question is tabled, it will be screened as to whether there is a block upon it, in the usual way.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Hickmet: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I mentioned yesterday, this tendency to pursue Question Time through points of order is a bad habit. I said yesterday, and the House agreed, that we should stop it, and I hope that we shall.

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, you said that you were not prepared to take points of order today on what had happened the day before. You also said:
I will take points of order only on matters that do not refer back to what happened yesterday."—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 271.]
I ask for your guidance because it must be evident to all that, for two reasons, this must not be the case. The first is that colleagues are not always here when a matter arises in which they may have a role to play. Secondly, Hansard often gives guidance and clarification on something that may have been missed in the heat of the moment. Are you prepared to guide the House as to whether it is possible to "refer back" to what may be in Hansard dealing with a previous occasion, to seek clarification or guidance? Are you able to give the House this guidance?

Mr. Speaker: It is a question of the context in which these things are done. If it is a legitimate matter, that is one thing, but if it appears to be what I can only describe as part of a general excuse to seek to get things raised, it is a different matter. This House would be in chaos if the Chair allowed points of order to arise on matters that had arisen several days in the past. That has always been the rule.

Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your ruling on a specific matter. Have not you and your predecessors ruled consistently that an answer given by a Minister is not a matter for you, and that Ministers, not the Chair, are responsible for the content of their answers? Therefore, is it not the case that the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House, who sought to raise a point of order arising out of the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, was no point of order because answers given from the ministerial Dispatch Box are not a matter for you?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is entirely the case, but the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that a great many points of order are spurious, as many have been today.

Mr. Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reference has been made in a number of questions to the content of the Order Paper. You will have seen a number of motions in the names of Labour Members dealing with various security matters that seem to have attracted a great many names. When one puts in an early-day motion in these terms, in the names of many hon. Members, perhaps even Front Bench spokesmen, is it necessary for those people to have signed the paper, or is it sufficient for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to have a list of hon. Members who are prepared to help him in his muckraking efforts—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know about things like that. The hon. Gentleman well knows the rules regarding the tabling of questions.

Mr. Heffer: You referred, Mr. Speaker, to "the tendency". Could you please explain to the House to which tendency you are referring?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think not the same one as the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Now we will have the statement.

Mr. Hickmet: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order are taking up a great deal of time. I shall take these two points of order and then we must move on.

Mr. Hickmet: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You ruled some days ago that the proceedings in South Africa—Australia—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Hickmet.

Mr. Hickmet: You ruled, Mr. Speaker, some days ago that the proceedings in Australia were not sub judice. However, would you rule on this point: in a case to which the British Government are a party overseas, is it in order for Members of this honourable House to cross-examine Front Bench spokesmen on behalf of counsel who act for parties against whom the British Government are appearing? I refer in particular to the cross-examination carried out by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon of the Prime Minister on behalf of counsel acting for Peter Wright in Australia.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, as I understand it. He knows that this matter, as I ruled previously, is not sub judice under our rules. It may be sub judice under the rules of the Australian Parliament, but it is not sub judice under ours.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are confronted now with this very vexed issue of names being named outside this House. You have said that this is something that the Select Committee on Procedure might be minded to look into. May we ask you, Sir, as the guardian of privilege in this House, to put it before the Select Committee? Could you say whether you would be minded to give evidence? If you did so, would that evidence be published?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I am invited by the Select Committee to give evidence, I shall certainly do so.

Mr. Michael Brown: Would it be helpful at this stage—

Mr. Speaker: No. We shall now take the statement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about teachers' pay and conditions of service in England and Wales.
For more than two years now there have been protracted and unsatisfactory negotiations and—sadly—extensive disruption of children's education. To end that situation I announced in the House on 30 October that the Government would make an additional £600 million available over this year and next for a new pay structure. The structure should contain differentials to reflect the varying responsibilities of teachers and the need to recruit, retain and motivate teachers throughout the school system and at all stages of their careers. I made it clear that this generous Government support for such a pay structure would also depend on a clear definition of teachers' duties carrying through into contracts of employment.
There have been many long hours of negotiations since 30 October. So far, what has been achieved is a document which last Friday the local authorities by a majority vote and four of the six teacher unions agreed to put to their constituent bodies for consideration and ratification. Clearly opinion in the profession is divided. Many teachers concerned for the future of our school system have substantial reservations about the proposals in that document.
However, there has been some useful progress. There is now a clear definition of the teacher's job. Parents, local authorities, heads and teachers themselves all need this, so that there can be no doubt about what can be required of teachers within their contracts. The teachers' working year is to be fixed at 195 days, allowing five days beyond the pupil year. It is also agreed that teachers shall be available for work at the direction of the head teacher for 1,265 hours a year. That is a little less than the figure which the local authorities themselves took to the Coventry negotiations last July, but it is a figure which the Government judge sufficient, and which the Government would be willing to accept. There is progress too on teacher appraisal and yesterday I approved extra funding for development work in six local authorities. Lastly, it is now accepted by all that Burnham must go.
Last Friday's document also addresses complex issues about the ways in which the available teacher time should be deployed in schools. The best broad measure of staffing is the pupil-teacher ratio. That has fallen from 18·9 to 1 in 1979 to 17·6 to 1 this year. Our expenditure provision for 1987–88 and our plans for later years allow for a further fall. There are competing claims, between teaching classes, examination and assessment work, curriculum development, and the professional development and in-service training of teachers. My Department and the local authority associations have been examining those questions in some detail over recent years. I intend to undertake further consultation with local authorities and unions about those matters. But I should make it clear that future changes will have to be accommodated within our expenditure plans for education which the Government have already announced.
Progress has therefore been made in a number of areas, but I have also to tell the House plainly that Friday's document contains some features which the Government

cannot accept. First, we cannot accept the excess costs of the proposals on pay. The phasing and distribution mean that the proposals cost an extra £15 million for the three months of January to March next year and another £70 million for the next financial year. The Government's offer, worth £600 million, is for 16·4 per cent. to be implemented in full by next October. That offer stands. It is very generous by any standard.
Secondly, I must leave the House in no doubt about the unacceptability of the proposed pay structure. We have not been given a sensible structure for the profession. Instead we have a reiteration of earlier ideas with higher figures and only minimal movement towards the Government's criteria. The Government want a pay structure for the teaching profession which will provide more incentive posts and there is considerable professional support for that view. Those posts will reward good classroom teaching and extra responsibility. They will also pay for skills in short supply and attract good teachers to demanding posts which might otherwise be difficult to fill—for example, in inner city schools. My proposals are based on 140,000 incentive posts in a profession of 400,000 teachers. Today there are 105,000 such posts. Friday's proposals would provide only 80,000. That would mean that 25,000 teachers who are now on the higher scales would not hold promoted posts come September. My aim is that half of the profession should hold promoted posts or be heads or deputies. Theirs is that only about one third should hold such posts. This is a huge gap and a fundamental point of principle. We must enhance the career prospects of good teachers and give management the flexibility it needs to improve the quality of education in our schools.
Lastly, there is the question of future negotiating machinery. All are agreed that Burnham must go. Friday's document would in effect perpetuate arrangements similar to those which have so signally failed in recent times. The Government hold to the view that for an interim period we need an advisory committee and I shall tomorrow introduce the Bill announced in the Queen's Speech to establish such a committee.
I have been and remain willing to see the local authorities and the unions about these matters. But I am not willing to allow this highly unsatisfactory situation to continue. Our children are entitled to better schooling and that has often been denied them over the past two years. The House, the public and all parents will understand that the Government must put our children first.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we are in favour of reform of the Burnham machinery, we shall strongly oppose any legislation which removes bargaining rights? We welcome the fact that, despite all the press reports, there is no mention of imposition in his statement. But is he aware that we shall also strongly oppose any attempt to impose a settlement, either now or in the future? The nation wants decent pay for teachers, an improved education service and, above all, peace in the classroom.
The question that each hon. Member has to answer is whether these objectives are more likely to be secured by an agreement that has already been negotiated by employers and teachers, and that is supported by at least two thirds of the profession, or by an imposed settlement


that will not only be accompanied by severe technical difficulties, but is also highly likely to lead to renewed disruption?
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has at last recognised the substantial advantages and achievements represented by the deal. It establishes decent pay for classroom teachers, provides a clear definition of teachers' duties, lays down a minimum number of duty days, sets up a system of appraisal, establishes negotiating machinery that links together pay and conditions—the right hon. Gentleman did not mention that—and defines, for the first time, a maximum class size.
I accept that there are still differences between the Secretary of State's position and the agreement, particularly over structure and costs. Indeed, what I heard the right hon. Gentleman say about both of those matters was somewhat exaggerated. Is he really telling the House that those differences are insurmountable—[Interruption.] He said that they were huge. Did not the employers make it abundantly clear last night to the Secretary of State that they are prepared to discuss the differences in a flexible and responsible manner? So far, the Secretary of State's handling of the dispute has been inept: his ham-fisted intervention at Nottingham, and his unfortunate comment to the House on 13 November about the talks being a fiasco just 36 hours before there was a settlement.
Is the Secretary of State aware that he still has a chance to redeem his reputation if he talks seriously and constructively to the employers and teachers, and reaches an agreement with them? Will he confirm that he intends to do that? Parents will not forgive him or his Government if he fails to grasp this opportunity for lasting peace in our schools.

Mr. Baker: When, about six weeks ago, I did not make the Government's position clear, the hon. Gentleman accused me of dithering, and when I made the Government's position clear, he accused me of being ham-fisted and inept. On 30 October I set out the Government's position, and the framework against which an agreement that would have been acceptable to the Government could have been reached. The document that the hon. Gentleman flourished a few moments ago is an agreement to submit the proposals to the members of the unions. That process is now under way, and may well run for some weeks into December.
Let there be no doubt that there are real worries within the unions. So far, I have seen the Secondary Heads Association and I know of its anxieties on the question of structure. On Monday its members told me that they were very worried about the structure. The Professional Association of Teachers has written to me, and I shall be seeing that association and the National Association of Headteachers again. Yet again the hon. Gentleman has tried to pass off as agreement a situation characterised by serious disagreement, but yet again he has failed.
As I pointed out in my statement, I am certainly willing to hear further representations. Councillor Pearman came to see me last night, and we discussed principally the cost and the structure. The structure is not a minor point, as the hon. Gentleman might like to think. It is the structure to be laid down for the teaching profession for, in effect, the rest of this century. Perhaps I can cite an example. A

large comprehensive school that has 75 or 80 teachers may commonly have about 50 of them in some sort of incentive or promotion posts. The proposal that Councillor Pearman confirmed to me last night would be to reduce the number of posts in such a school to 15 to 20. One cannot run a large secondary school on that basis as it does not provide incentives for good teachers.
I cannot accept this flat-earth pay structure. There are insufficient incentive posts and hopelessly inadequate differentials, which means that heads will have a reduced ability to manage their schools. I am prepared to listen, but I want to hear less pretence about marginal differences and more about real movements away from what I regard as an entirely mistaken and misconceived pay and career structure for the teaching profession.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm the differences between the Nottingham pay scales and his. I congratulate him on the abolition of the Burnham committee and ask him to reject the unfounded but predictable criticism of Opposition Members. Parents will respect what is being done and will acknowledge that the pay on the table for teachers represents a good deal for the profession, for schools and for children.

Mr. Baker: The amount of money available is the largest that has ever been offered to teachers in a pay deal. About £600 million is available and it is a grave disappointment that the negotiators at Nottingham and London took that sum, added to it and spread it in a way which intensifies the flat-earth approach of their pay structure. It would mean that certain teachers at the lower end of the scales would receive substantial increases of 40, 50, and 60 per cent., which would mean wage increases of £40, £50, £60 and, in some instances, £70 a week. These are substantial increases.
I can demonstrate the difference between us most significantly by taking as an example a good honours graduate of 22 years of age who wants to become a teacher. Under the local authorities' proposals, he would receive only £1 extra, but under my proposals he would receive another £13 a week. If he did well in the profession, however, at the age of 28, for example, he would be earning £12,700 a year under the Government's proposals, but £20 a week less than that annual sum would produce under the local authorities' proposals. That is because the local authorities' proposals do not recognise and reward good, able and energetic teachers.

Mr. Clement Freud: Does the Secretary of State genuinely feel that this negation of the negotiation procedure will bring long-lasting peace to the classroom? Will he accept that the partnership on which he is so keen does not involve either party getting all that it wants? Given the substantial shift in the teachers' position, would it not become the right hon. Gentleman to be more magnanimous than he is? Will he accept that pupil-teacher ratios are no longer the important criteria and that class sizes are?

Mr. Baker: There can be no justification for disruption. The amount of money that the Government have made available is uniquely generous and I hope very much that there will be no disruption. Unfortunately, it is not clear, even if the Government were to accept the proposal, that


there would not be disruption. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers speaks of the schools being made a battlefield.
I was depressed when I read an article that appeared in Education last week. I refer to the reported remarks of Mrs. Christine Keats, who is the local secretary in Birmingham of the NAS/UWT. She said on behalf of her union that it would work strictly to the rule book and cause as much disruption as possible. She added:
We are well known for our ability to find ways of making life difficult for LEAs and that is what we will do if either deal goes through.
I find that attitude deplorable and disgraceful.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: When my right hon. Friend encounters that mood among the leaders of teachers' unions, does he remind them sometimes that the primary purpose of the school system, for which ratepayers and taxpayers pay, is to provide children with the opportunity of a good education, and that all teachers employed in our schools have an equal duty to provide that service?

Mr. Baker: Our children deserve an uninterrupted education, and over the past two years teachers, many of them with heavy hearts, as I recognise, have engaged in disruption. I hope that this will not occur again. As I have said, there has been progress, and the definition of teachers' duties is an example of that. I must re-emphasise that we must use this opportunity to ensure that there is a proper pay structure with proper incentives and rewards for good classroom teaching.

Mr. Jack Dormand: Does the Secretary of State appreciate just how far the teachers have moved in coming to this agreement, given their long, strongly held and properly held views? I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of what he has said, that his proposals—this does not apply only to the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—are a recipe for further disruption in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman makes great play of the fact that the Government are offering the biggest increase that there has ever been, but I remind him that the proportion is not as great as that which was offered and readily agreed under the Houghton report. Although the right hon. Gentleman talks, and rightly so, about the quality of teaching and the reward for teachers, will he tell the House how he intends to implement the assessment of teachers? Whether the assessment is of head teachers, local government inspectors or HMIs, it is an exceedingly difficult task, and nothing like as easy as he is trying to make out. He had better comment on that.

Mr. Baker: In our discussions with local education authorities and the unions we have agreed that there will be six pilot projects, which I agreed to fund yesterday. I hope that they will get under way. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is not one set method of appraisal of teachers. I recognise that there are different methods.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Houghton report. When the Conservative Government took office in 1979, teachers' pay under the Labour Government had fallen in real terms by 13 per cent. below the levels of the Houghton award. That is what we inherited. If my proposal goes through, and taking inflation at 3·5 per cent. per annum, by October 1987 teachers' pay will, on average, be 10 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1974.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will exercise the influence that he has in his party and in the country to ensure that there will not be disruption. I do not believe that parents will forgive anyone who says that there should be disruption. There is no justification for it. We have provided an extra £600 million for the resolution of this dispute, and that sum was not on the table a year ago.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any pay dispute is capable of settlement if we fall into the trap of believing that another few tens of millions of pounds do not matter? Does he agree that it is crucial that we arrive at a structure for the profession that will stand the test of time and will be inviting to entrants into a long-term career in teaching, and that it is worth struggling for that?

Mr. Baker: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We are dealing with the fundamental issues of the definition of a teacher's job and the structure of the profession and not only the resolution of a pay dispute for the rest of this year and next year. I must emphasise how important that is. It will condition the attitudes of those who want to enter the profession. We must make the profession attractive to young people by ensuring that they can obtain proper rewards and differentials for good classroom teaching and for teaching subjects for which there is a shortage of teachers, and not only through promotion.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the leaders of the teachers' unions are genuinely interested in increasing the professional standing of their members, they should support an incentive-based pay structure?

Mr. Baker: I agree entirely. I do not see how many schools can be operated without such a structure. I shall give my hon. Friend one example. Under the ACAS document, deputies of smaller primary schools with an average of about 75 pupils would have a salary of £15,300, just £242 more than the maximum salary on the basic scale. If the differential is squashed to that extent, why should anyone want to take on the extra responsibility for such a small reward? No one would want to do so.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Before the Secretary of State proceeds with the line of action he has just outlined, will he bear in mind that a loss of bargaining rights and an imposed settlement failed to work at GCHQ and caused a great deal of bitterness? Unless he changes his mind now, his policy will create even more bitterness in the schools and create precisely the sort of disruption he says he is anxious to avoid.

Mr. Baker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not underestimate the degree of professional support one has for an incentive-based system. According to the advice that is available to me, to central Government and local government, there is a great deal of support for an incentive-based system. Since I announced the framework on 30 October, the unions and the Labour-led local authority employers have not really moved towards that structure in any significant way. As I said, I am prepared to listen to them if they still wish to talk.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Will the Secretary of State say what he intends to do about the


differences he has with the teachers and local authorities? Will he continue to exhort them to change their mind? Will he negotiate a settlement with them, or will he impose it?

Mr. Baker: There is obviously an indication on structure from the Secondary Heads Association, which is the only union I have seen so far. We will have to see what the other unions say.

Mr. Robert Key: Will my right hon. Friend clarify a point he made during his statement when he referred to an interim advisory committee? Clearly we are all anxious to move forward from this debacle. Am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend's proposal is to lay a Bill before the House to abolish Burnham and then immediately to institute an interim committee which could be the body to find a way out of this impasse? Would it be that body which had that task?

Mr. Baker: I do not envisage that. The Bill will repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 and set up an interim advisory committee—I stress interim advisory committee—which will make recommendations to me on the pay and conditions of teachers which I shall then discuss with the unions and local authorities. I shall bring forward the recommendations to the House in statutory instruments. That is rather similar to my powers under the existing Act in that I have parliamentary powers to lay down the levels at which teachers should be paid and at which local authorities have to pay them. Under the Act there is no particular parliamentary procedure to do that; the orders are just announced. I would not envisage the differences on structure being addressed to the interim advisory committee. I hope that we can find a way through that before the committee is appointed and begins its work.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Minister accept that all Opposition Members agree with him that our children deserve an uninterrupted education? However, if he had sat down and planned disruption, he could not have done it more brilliantly than the statement he has just made. Will he further accept that if he persists in the attitude he has shown in his statement there is not the slightest doubt that the teachers will react? They have behind them the attitude of the Scottish teachers who, by an 84 per cent. majority, have rejected the offer. Therefore, the teaching profession in Scotland, England and Wales is now unified against what the Government are doing to the teaching service.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the teaching profession is unified on this matter in England or Scotland.

Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean.

Mr. Baker: If words have any precision and meaning—I sometimes wonder whether they do for the hon. Gentleman—one cannot possibly describe as a unified position a draft agreement which is signed by only four unions; and subsequently they are even expressing reservations about parts of the draft agreement. I deplore the extravagant phraseology and language used by the hon. Gentleman in talking about disruption and trouble in the schools. I emphasise that there would be no justification for that whatsoever. A substantial sum of

money has been provided for a teachers' pay settlement in the immediate future. It is a much larger sum than has ever been provided in the past. Many working parents, who are not likely to see the sort of increases which are available under the proposals, will resent it if teachers walk out on their classes.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the flexibility shown by my right hon. Friend in being prepared to go on talking. That is very important. In my experience, unless there are adequate differentials, a large number of important jobs in urban areas and many other deprived areas in every school in the country will not be filled because teachers will not have the incentive to undertake what can often be very difficult work in problem areas. Has my right hon. Friend observed that in the conditions he is considering today—the condition requiring assistant teachers to undertake such extra duties as head teachers may require—has been deleted from the agreement? Can he think of any other institutions which heads are required to run without that sort of back-up?

Mr. Baker: On the latter point, teachers will be available for work under the direction of the head for 1,265 hours each year, which is 324½ hours per week. There will be the usual requirements of a profession. It is accepted by the unions that teachers often work longer hours; it is a great tradition of the profession.
On the first point, I draw considerable support from my hon. Friend's experience as a teacher. I agree entirely with what he says. It would be difficult to attract into the profession the calibre of people we want in order to improve the quality of education in our country, especially in our towns and cities, unless there were adequate differentials and awards. That is the nub of the difference between us.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: The Secretary of State has talked about his willingness to listen and be flexible. Are we to conclude from that that his statement this afternoon is not his final word on this pay settlement?

Mr. Baker: Ever since I have held this post I have been asked to clarify the position of the Government and to say what would be my position. I have done so and I have been attacked for doing so. I certainly do not look upon the draft document which came out on Friday as the last word from the employers. I must emphasise again that the Government are convinced that we need a pay structure which has a large number of differentials, more than the two on offer from the unions and employers of £750 and £2,000. I have recommended five—from £900 up to £4,800. There must be real incentives which will encourage people to take on added responsibility and incentives to reward the good classroom teacher.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week, when he met 350 people comprising teachers, parents and governors from nearly every school in my constituency, all the teachers, including several heads and deputy heads, supported my right hon. Friend's proposals and urged him to reject the ACAS proposal? Did he get the impression that many of the trade unions are out of touch with many of their members?

Mr. Baker: I drew considerable comfort from the meeting I addressed in my hon. Friend's constituency. It was a large meeting of teachers. My hon. Friend reports


quite correctly that everyone who spoke supported the Government's proposals and condemned the unions' proposals.

Mr. David Young: I should say to the Secretary of State that Opposition Members have been trying to re-establish peace in the classroom since the dispute began. It has not been helped by the intransigence of his predecessor or an imposed settlement from him. Will he clarify concisely that he will not impose a settlement but will reopen negotiations? As a former teacher, may I ask him, in the interests of peace in the classroom, to stop referring to "good" classroom teachers? We do not hear about "good" policemen when police settlements are discussed, so let us stop that kind of divisive talk from the Government.

Mr. Baker: The comments of the hon. Gentleman clearly demonstrate the great gulf betwen the two philosophical approaches.
On the question of imposing a settlement, I have laid down the Government's preconditions. As yet, those preconditions have not been met. There is a £85 million overshoot and a pay and career structure at odds with the Government's wishes for more incentive posts. As I have said, my door remains open, but there is a large gulf of principle of philosophy on the shape of the structure. Serious proposals would entail a fundamental shift in the shape of the structure on behalf of the Labour employers and the unions.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is not the use of the word "employer" a misnomer in these discussions? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the employers to whom he refers are almost entirely party politicians and almost entirely working hand-in-glove with the trade unions? Indeed, many of them share the views of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). If my right hon. Friend accepts that proposition, does he agree that the relationship between the funding of education by local authorities and central Government now bears little relationship to the words which are used to describe it? It is about time that a paper was presented to explain the costs and procedures that might be involved if teachers' salaries were transferred from local authority to central Government responsibility.

Mr. Baker: I certainly have no proposals to do that. During the negotiations the Conservative employers eventually walked out because they felt they were not party—

Mr. Radice: They did not walk out.

Mr. Baker: They walked out at one stage, then returned, and walked out again. However, although they were representing the employers' interests, they did not feel that they were part and parcel of the process. That demonstrates the totally unsatisfactory nature of the existing Burnham arrangements. They are utterly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the characteristics of this Government during the past seven years has been their claim of non-intervention in industrial matters? Even as late as last night one of the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues claimed that, even where the Government have a direct interest in the provision of appliances and limbs for people without legs or arms, they

cannot get involved in a dispute and the Secretary of State and his colleagues have said roughly the same thing on many other occasions. Does he not think that teachers may think that they are being picked out for special treatment at a time when most of the people involved in the dispute have, at arm's length from the Secretary of State, almost managed to get the ink dry on a settlement? Does that not suggest to the teachers that the Government are trying not to find an agreement but to stir up trouble?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the position. As the representative of the taxpayer in all this, I have to find a very large sum of money for negotiations to which I am not party. I am then presented with the bill and told to sign for it. That is an absurd procedure. There was an arrangement two years ago whereby my predecessor had a direct involvement, but that accord was torn up and now I am not a party to the agreement. That shows the fantasy and unreality of the present negotiations. It is absurd of the hon. Gentleman to claim that we are interfering. We are involved as we have to provide a large part of the settlement money.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend noted an authoritative academic study that finds that the average British school leaver in the lower half of the ability range is two years behind his German counterpart in mathematical attainment? Can he confirm that last year only 45 per cent. of mathematics lessons in schools at secondary level were taught by teachers with a main qualification in that subject and that the loss of mathematics teachers to the profession in that year rose to 10 per cent.? Does he accept that the majority of people will deplore the persistent failure of the Burnham negotiators adequately to respond to the crisis in mathematics teaching and will support him in altering the arrangements so that we are able to tackle problems effectively?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has made a good and important point. There is a serious shortage of mathematics and physics teachers and a less serious shortage of craft, design and technology teachers. Earlier this week I was told by Professor Black, the chairman of the Association of Science Education, that we need 2,500 extra physics teachers. How will we get those teachers? We will get them by offering good graduates the prospect of a career with sufficient incentives. I have proposed five incentive allowances that can be used to attract and retain the people with skills that are in short supply and heavy demand such as mathematics. We must recognise the operation of the market. If we do not, we shall deny children the expert tuition to which they are entitled. I thoroughly support my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I have sympathy with the Secretary of State's plight, and as a parent I believe that there is an overwhelming need to restore equilibrium in the classrooms, but what does the Secretary of State think that his statement today will achieve? What steps will he now take to bring about an agreement that will bring about the equilibrium?

Mr. Baker: I have already contributed a great deal to the resolution of the settlement, as I have provided some £600 million over the rest of the year and for next year. I have suggested a pay structure that will improve the


quality of education in our classrooms. The unions and Labour-led local authorities have not moved to that position at all. They have increased the money and spread it in a way that is not in the long-term interests of the teaching profession.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many teachers are not at all happy with the draft employers' agreement and want genuine promotion prospects? They feel that the agreement is too loaded against new entrants and does not encourage true, genuine flexibility and differentials. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we want to see quality through appraisal rewarding the best teachers? My right hon. Friend's decisions so far are dead on to help our children.

Mr. Baker: That is true. Of course, the unions have agreed to the concept of appraisal. That is why they have agreed, together with the local education authorities, to have six pilot projects. There must be an acceptance that there should be teacher appraisal. The profession has not had appraisal so far and it would provide a basis for distinguishing those who should get better rewards as good teachers in the classroom. I agree that many teachers have already expressed strong support irrespective of their union membership for the proposals that I have put forward.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the simple ambition is to restore the quality of teaching in our schools by rewarding teachers who teach well and that that ambition is supported by parents? That ambition is also clearly supported by the majority of teachers, as was evidenced by last week's Gallup poll.

Mr. Baker: There is a great deal of support for the Government's proposal. I noticed a television poll a fortnight ago which revealed that 60 per cent. of those who were asked said that the Government's offer was generous. Twelve per cent. said that it was too generous. Therefore, 72 per cent. of the poll said that the offer was either generous or too generous. Only 23 per cent. thought that we were not generous enough. That reflects the feeling in the country. Many parents, members of the public and grandparents will be surprised that, with all the money being provided by the Government, the unions and local authority employers cannot reach an agreement.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend may well be aware of the fact that children were told not to turn up at a school in south London today until 12.15 pm because of a teachers' meeting. It seemed that it was impossible to hold the teachers' meeting outside school hours. Would my right hon. Friend, when considering the new contract, take account of the fact that some local education authorities are unable or unwilling—because they are dominated by teacher unions—to enforce proper contracts? Therefore, will he give power over the contracts to school governors through headmasters?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend records what is unfortunately only all too common in schools in several parts of London today, where there is intermittent disruption. The House should be under no illusion that disruption is not taking place in schools. Indeed, it certainly is happening in many ILEA schools. On my hon. Friend's point about enforceability, both the ACAS document of last Friday and the Government proposals envisage that definitions of teachers' jobs should be incorporated in proper contracts. My hon. Friend, however, goes further than that. Yesterday Councillor Pearman, the leader of the local authority side, told me that he would expect each LEA to implement, honour and seek to secure the observance of these contracts.

Mr. Radice: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Bill that he is to introduce tomorrow will enable him to impose a settlement?

Mr. Baker: The Bill that I will introduce tomorrow will. first, repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. It will end the powers that I have to issue parliamentary orders requiring local authorities to pay teachers at a certain level. It will also set up an interim advisory committee and give me renewed powers, to issue regulations. Following the recommendations of the intermediary advisory committee, and discussions of the recommendations with the unions and local authority employers, there would have to be powers similar to those that I have now, to issue regulations requiring local authorities—

Mr. Radice: What powers does the right hon. Gentleman have now?

Mr. Baker: I am always anxious to increase the hon. Gentleman's knowledge, so I just fleshed out the full powers that I shall have.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY I DECEMBER—Until about seven o'clock Second Reading of the Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill followed by Second Reading of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill.
Afterwards there will be a debate on a Government motion to take note of EC documents on emergency measures in the dairy sector. Details of the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 2 DECEMBER—Opposition day (2nd Allotted Day), until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Scandal of Insider Dealing". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Misery of Fuel Poverty". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
There will be a debate on EC documents relating to the multi-fibre arrangement, new protocol and bilateral agreements. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the House of Commons Disqualification Act.
Motion on the European Assembly elections Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 3 DECEMBER—Opposition day (3rd Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on the need for a Select Committee of Privy Councillors to oversee the security services. Afterwards there will be a debate on defence. Both debates will arise on motions in the names of the Leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.
Afterwards there will be a debate on an EC document relating to research and technological development. details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 4 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill.
Motions on the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order and the Health and personal Social Services and Public Health (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 5 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Education Bill.

[Debate on Monday 1 December

Relevant European Documents:

(a) 9161/186 Emergency measures in Milk Sector

(b) Unnumbered Emergency measures in Milk Sector

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

(a) HC 21-xxvii (1985–86), para. 19

(b) HC 22-i ( 1986–97), para. 1

Debate on Tuesday 2 December

Relevant European Documents:

(c) 9809/86

Multi-Fibre Arrangement: Extension of protocol

(d) Unnumbered

Multi-Fibre Arrangement: Bilateral Agreements.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

(c) HC 22-ii (1986–87), para. 5

(d) HC 22-ii (1986–87), para. 11

Debate on Wednesday 3 December

Relevant European Document:

(e) 8764/86 Community Research and Development

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

(e) HC 21-xxviii (1985–86), para. 5]

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
Does he accept that yesterday's announcement of 1,500 redundancies at Scott Lithgow is a devastating blow to the people of the lower Clyde and underlines the urgent need for support for the Scottish economy, initiatives to deal with the effects of the reduction in the North sea oil industry and action on the long-term decline in the shipbuilding sector which has been accelerated by the Government's policy of malign neglect? In view of the tragic results for workers losing their livelihood in an area where male unemployment is already more than 25 per cent., does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for the Government to provide time for a debate very soon on this and related issues?
It has become apparent that the Government are injecting £100 million of taxpayers' money to assist the privatisation of Rolls-Royce 1971. This follows the writing off in 1985 of £372 million of losses since the company's collapse as a private operation in 1971. When will the House be able to debate this further attempt by the Government to use public resources to promote the selling off of public assets?
The Government have imposed a £1·3 million cut on the Sports Council budget although the council requires extra help for schemes specifically related to work in deprived areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange time for a debate as soon as possible so that the Government can answer for their mean and entirely negative policy towards the Sports Council?
Finally, there is to be a debate next Wednesday evening on research and technological development. May I remind the Leader of the House of my question on 30 October asking that time be given to debate the widely supported idea of an office of technology assessment for Members of the House of Commons? On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would examine the possibility of a debate. Has he done so, and what is the result?

Mr. Biffen: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for putting those four points. I shall take them in the order presented.
I am sure that the whole House is united in appreciating the difficulties arising from the proposed redundancies at Scott Lithgow. I note the request for a debate on that and related matters, covering heavy engineering generally and in Scotland. Perhaps that could be looked at through the usual channels.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that our approach to the privatisation of Rolls-Royce will be characterised by the same strong sense of fiscal rectitude and general imagination—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman must not get too emotional about these things. One of the Government's striking successes has been our record on privatisation and I have no reason to suppose that it will not be sustained in respect of Rolls-Royce. Meanwhile, I note the right hon. Gentleman's interest in giving the topic wider publicity through a debate in the House and I will take account of that.
I understand that the Sports Council was informed some time ago of the amount that would be available so


that the figure could be taken into account in the council's budget. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate, but we can look at the subject through the usual channels.
I have taken an interest in the facilities available for the House in technological terms and it would be appropriate for me to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the matter that he has raised was recently considered by the House of Commons Commission. I have no plans for a debate on the subject.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has always been a pleasure on Thursdays for the House to put questions to my right hon. Friend or his predecessors about almost any subject under the sun which could not be raised in the ordinary way? Indeed, it used to be referred to as "Back Benchers' Playtime". There is now another period occurring after questions, which might be called "Private Eye Time" when spurious points of order go on and on and people outside are maligned by hon. Members who would not dare to make the same comments outside the doors of this Chamber. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is intolerable, and may I suggest to him—you, Mr. Speaker, may listen in, of course—that it might be a good idea to allow just one point of order from each side on any subject after questions and take the rest at 10 o'clock at night? If my right hon. Friend can think of any better way to deal with the problem, perhaps he will tell us, as we need to do something about this problem.

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for his good-natured observations. He raises a very serious point. How we conduct ourselves in the House is a matter for the House itself, in the light of recommendations and guidance proffered by the Procedure Committee. I tend to be traditionalist and conservative in all these matters when innovations are proposed, but, looking back over the years, I believe that continence is essential if we are to maintain our traditional procedures. [Interruption.] I deflect my eyes from looking at the Opposition Front Bench to determine who are the more incontinent. The number of oral questions has been restricted and formalised and the 10-minute limit on speeches is increasingly accepted. In all these matters, when the House judges that there is abuse it will find a remedy. I hope that we shall all bear that in mind.

Mr. Jack Ashley: That may well have been a good-natured observation by the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), but it is nonsense because it would limit the rights of Back Benchers and would be unacceptable. It is always a pleasure to put a point to the Leader of the House, but he has an easy wicket and he is not giving substantive replies. I should like to ask one simple question. The Prime Minister has offered countless excuses for not replying to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about why the Australian case is continuing. May we take it for granted that the moment the case is concluded one way or another, the Prime Minister will make a full, frank and comprehensive major statement in the House answering all the points made by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman must put that question at the appropriate moment. His attitude of mind demonstrates that he would not regard any answer as comprehensive and conclusive.

Mr. William Cash: Bearing in mind the motion about Privy Councillors, which is due to be debated next week, and that there was a motion down for a Select Committee to investigate the issues raised by the Warnock report some two years ago—which had the substantial support of over 100 hon. Members—will my right hon. Friend consider after the public consultation process and in the light of the recent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) the remits of the public consultation that will take place under the proposed consultation paper that will be referred to a Select Committee next year. Such a Select Committee was appointed in Australia.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has asked me to take a view as soon as the current consultations have concluded. It would be extremely uncharitable of me to say that I would not take a view, because, of course, I shall.

Mr. Reg Freeson: Will the Leader of the House invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House next week, if not before then, to clarify misleading statements that he made in his autumn statement, namely that in the coming year there will be an increase of about £450 million in housing investment for local authorities? Within a day or so of that misleading statement, a reduction was announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In real terms, that reduction is 11 per cent. across the country, and my own authority in the hard-pressed housing area of Brent in north-west London has had a reduction of 18 per cent. in real terms. That is a loss of about £40 million in 1987 compared to expenditure in the current year. How can it be true that £450 million extra is being placed in the hands of local authorities next year? Was that not totally misleading and should not the Chancellor come to the House to explain it?

Mr. Biffen: I repudiate at once the charge that that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would utter misleading statements. However, I shall refer to him the right hon. Gentleman's points.

Sir Ian Percival: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have observed that since he last commented on early-day motion 35, the number of signatories has gone up from 120 to 162.
[That this House congratulates and thanks all those whose efforts contributed to the prevention of the hideous crime planned, executed and so nearly effected by Nezar Hindawi, and to his conviction; recognises the existence of international gangs who are prepared to commit mass murder in pursuit of their objectives and that the maximum penalty permitted by law of life imprisonment does not appear to be a sufficient deterrent; believes that fresh consideration should be given to extending the death penalty, now limited to crimes of treason and piracy; and asks the Leader of the House to give time for these matters to be debated.]
May I draw to his attention the fact that of those signatories at least 12 are hon. Members who voted against the death penalty on the first vote on 13 July 1983? That shows that this may not be such a closed shop as some


people would like to think. I point out to my right hon. Friend, first, the number of hon. Members who have signed; secondly, that those hon. Members represent constituents all over Great Britain; thirdly, that they are of all seniorities and ages; and, fourthly, that they are of all kinds. Does he not accept that that combination of factors amounts to a substantial case for the allocation of time for debate?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for updating the statistics of this proposition. Later this afternoon we shall have the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. I hope that he will consider how that might be used to provide the debate that he seeks.

Mr. Michael Latham: Following your earlier remarks, Mr. Speaker, will the Leader of the House speak to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure with a view to getting an early report on the use of the Order Paper for early-day motions? Is it not extraordinary that an hon. Member can take a piece of paper, write on it suspicions that Lord Rothschild was a Soviet spy and the fifth man, and can hand it in with allegations that he would not dare to make outside this House?

Mr. Biffen: I must remind my hon. Friend that his remarks apply equally to words used in debate. I understand his point and have a lively sympathy for it. The terms that established the Select Committee on Procedure allow it to carry out its work without any initiation from me, but I shall certainly draw to the Chairman's attention the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I should like to ask the Leader of the House about the rather strange procedures governing the Channel Tunnel Bill, which is due to be considered in Standing Committee from next Tuesday, before the special report by the Select Committee has been submitted to the House and considered by hon. Members. Is it not extraordinary that a Standing Committee should be asked to consider a Bill without hon. Members first having had an opportunity to consider a full report from the Select Committee? Will the Leader of the House agree to defer the sitting of the Standing Committee by at least a week to enable hon. Members to see this report and comment upon it?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think that the report is to be published tomorrow.

Mr. Eric Forth: No doubt my right hon. Friend will be aware of the serious and increasing anxiety in the House about the possible connection between a court case now taking place in Australia and possible communications between people involved in that case and hon. Members. I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares that anxiety, but does he share it sufficiently to allow time in the near future for the House to give the fullest possible consideration to the effects that that may have on the standing of this House and of the possible abuse of its procedures in cases where legal proceedings taking place in another country may somehow be transmitted into the House, thus abusing the sub judice rule in that country or here?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes his point most delicately and without any offensive naming of names. I shall certainly look at the point that he raises, because I realise that it is causing concern.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Leader of the House will know that about a fortnight ago I asked him a question about prisons and imprisonment. Bearing in mind that prisons for females may be full and that women are being held in police stations either after remand in custody or, indeed, after sentencing, and that we are about to debate the Criminal Justice Bill which proposes to increase sentences passed by the courts, does he not agree that time should be found between now and Christmas for the sensitive subject of prisons and imprisonment to be debated?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point. Equally, I am aware of the pressure on the time of the House between now and Christmas. I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman who knows perfectly well that he can make a speech on the matters he mentions later this afternoon.

Mr. David Harris: I am looking forward, if that is the right term, to next Wednesday's debate initiated by the alliance on its proposal to set up a Select Committee on security. Am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend will reply to that debate? I am sorry that he shakes his head, because I was going to suggest that if he did take part he could point out to the leader of the SDP that the whole essence of having a secret service is to keep it secret.

Mr. Biffen: I have no authority over those who are chosen to take the lead parts in debates and for that reason I cannot answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question. In his second point, he neatly made in a sentence a devastating rebuttal of what I suspect will be the essence of the alliance attack, and I congratulate him on doing that.

Mr. Dave Nellist: We now know that President Reagan supplied arms to Iran in order to finance the Contras, yet the Prime Minister still chooses selectively to condemn state terrorism. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House now reconsider his reply to me at this time last week, about the secret counter-insurgency conference that took place in London earlier this month? The Ministry of Defence has now confirmed that the second-in-command of 2 Para attended and spoke at the conference. The conference was called to discuss terrorist activities against the Governments of Nicaragua, Angola and Mozambique. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I well recall the point that the hon. Gentleman raised and I will most certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In his consideration of the proceedings of the House and the business for next week, will my right hon. Friend read carefully the question put to the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) concerning security? That question makes suggestions that could, if implemented, save the Government a great deal


of embarrassment and may in the long term save a great deal of parliamentary time-wasting, as happened with Westland.

Mr. Biffen: I will of course draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He may have an opportunity to elaborate that argument in Wednesday's debate.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to read the 11th annual report of the European regional development fund which was published in October 1986? Page 108 shows that in the distribution of the regional fund project throughout the United Kingdom, the north of England has the seventh lowest percentage allocation out of the nine regions, one third of what the highest region receives and a half of what it would get if the fund was divided evenly. Yet the north has consistently had the highest level of unemployment in Great Britain, second only to Northern Ireland. Is there not something tragically wrong with that allocation?
As the recent publication "Inequalities of Health in the North" shows quite clearly the relationship between bad health and high unemployment, will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement by the appropriate Minister?

Mr. Biffen: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's linked question is no; the answer to the second is that I conclude from the statistics that he mentioned that it is very difficult to establish any satisfactory relationship between public expenditure and employment creation. With regard to his third point, I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today is the first anniversary of the debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement? Since that agreement has not achieved any of its three objectives of peace, reconciliation and stability, and since there is political stalemate in the Province, which must be harmful in the long term, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that time will be found for the House to debate the success or otherwise of the agreement?

Mr. Biffen: I will, of course, bear in mind my hon. Friend's request. I must observe that there is very little available time for general debate between now and Christmas. Northern Ireland business does feature this week. Although it is not drawn as widely as my hon. Friend may wish, I am sure that he can make some of his points then.

Mr. Greville Janner: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to an aspect of security which concerns the people of Leicestershire but has not been mentioned in this House? I refer to the Government's persistent refusal not to assure us that when nuclear convoys—vehicles carrying nuclear weapons—pass through the county, prior warning will be given to the emergency services. As there is such a convoy passing through Leicestershire at this moment, and staying overnight either in or near the county, may we have an

immediate statement—[Interruption.] This matter is perhaps regarded with humour by others, but certainly not by Opposition Members.

Mr. Biffen: I will, of course, consider the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but I am sure that Leicester is no more exposed in this matter than the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend accept my support for the plea made by the Leader of the Opposition—who has now left the Chamber—for a debate on the Scottish economy? It might then be explained to the right hon. Gentleman that during five years of continuous growth in the British economy and rising standards of living, the position of Scotland has improved relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill is an even more urgent matter for Second Reading debate?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend said. He will realise that we are anxious for the Scottish rates Bill to be launched as early as possible. Of course I take account of his point about the importance of having debates on Scotland, and the Scottish Grand Committee may provide an appropriate forum for such a debate.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Will the Leader of the House give me clarification over the point I raised earlier about the attendance and invalid care allowances for terminal cases? I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side ever intended when passing the legislation that the six-months rule should apply in such cases. This is an exceptional issue.
On a previous occasion, when we required equipment for the disabled, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) responded by giving emergency supplies, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Will he study this matter and, if legislation is required, help to bring it to the House or ask his right hon. Friend to do so?

Mr. Biffen: I heard the hon. Gentleman put his point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I can do nothing but reiterate her answer. I shall certainly look into the situation and be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend consider changing the allocation of time for debates on Friday for the simple reason that we now have what is known as the Eleven o'clock farce, whereby every Friday at 11 o'clock an Opposition Front Bench spokesman comes forward with a spurious point of order simply to continue that week's fictional debate for the media for Friday and Saturday morning. That disturbs those who are anxious to engage in serious debate on Fridays.

Mr. Biffen: I will take away the problem and think about it, but I cannot offer the prospect of an early resolution.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Has the Leader of the House noticed early-day motion 92 and 93, standing in my name?
[That this House condemns the Estate Management Company, Estate House, 332A Regents Park Road, London, for its practice of purchasing the leaseholds of


residential property for the express purpose of reselling such leases to home owners at a profit; further condemns the dubious methods used by this company towards unwilling purchasers which includes threats of the loss of their homes; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to investigate the possibility of introducing new legislation to better protect home owners from this and similar abuses.]
[That this House condemns the London and Aukland Estates Company Ltd, of 26 Hazelwood Road, Nottingham, for its practice of purchasing the leaseholds of residential property for the express purpose of reselling such leases to home owners at a profit; further condemns the dubious methods used by this company towards unwilling purchasers which includes threats of loss of their homes; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to investigate the possibility of introducing new legislation tobetter protect home owners from this and similar abuses.]
They refer to the growing practice in the north of England of unscrupulous firms buying and selling ground rent. Many people, particularly the elderly in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends are upset by the activities of the firms. Can we have an early debate, or will the right hon. Gentleman at least alert the appropriate Minister to the practice?

Mr. Biffen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the early-day motions. I will certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate, but the Government will shortly be introducing legislation in respect of leaseholders. I think that on that occasion the hon. Gentleman will find it appropriate to make his speech.

Mr. Robert Key: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on the Short money for the payment of Opposition offices out of public funds, so that we can discover whether the head of the press office of the Leader of the Opposition is in Australia attending the infamous trial as part of her holiday, or whether she is on official business and paid out of public funds?

Mr. Biffen: I should make it clear that decisions on the so-called Short money have been made for the remainder of this Parliament. Therefore, in the natural course of events, there will not be an opportunity for such a debate. I am sure that the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend is a matter of public concern. I am certain that he will have his opportunity, one way or another, to see that the House knows more.

Mr. Max Madden: With reference to next week's debate on the security services, is the Leader of the House asking us to accept that he does not know who will speak on behalf of the Government, or is he just unwilling to admit that, again, he has drawn the short straw?

Mr. Biffen: Whatever I know or do not know, successive generations of Leaders of the House have stood at the Dispatch Box and said that they were not responsible for naming those who are to take part in debates.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate on the scandal of insider trading is intended to provide an opportunity for the House to

debate the dealing in the House by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and sundry others, on the basis of insider links with those opposing the Government and the courts of a foreign country?

Mr. Biffen: I am always intrigued by my hon. Friend's ingenuity. He will know that it is not for me to comment on what might be deemed to be in order.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When may we expect a ministerial statement on the progress of negotiations concerning the new EEC directive on shipbuilding? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the current directive expires on 31 December 1986. This matter is of crucial importance to my constituents in the light of yesterday's announcement by Scott Lithgow.

Mr. Biffen: I take account of what the hon. Gentleman said. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate also that we have a procedure for examining Community documents and making recommendations for their parliamentary consideration. I am sure that that will also apply to these documents.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that there is a strong feeling that there is daily contact between those who are in opposition to the Crown in Australia and the Opposition Front Bench—people not far removed from the Leader of the Opposition, if not the Leader of the Opposition himself—and that it is impossible for Lord Rothschild to answer unfounded slurs against him. We know that it is Opposition business next week. Will my right hon. Friend, through the usual channels, ask the Leader of the Opposition if he wants to have the opportunity to clear his name?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for the point that my hon. Friend made in characteristically forceful fashion. I shall pass his remarks on to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Following the resounding rejection by Scottish teachers yesterday of the Rifkind package—a package of pay and conditions which bore little resemblance to the recommendations of the independent report on teachers' pay and conditions—may we expect a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland next week, or as soon as possible, to ensure that there is no more avoidable disruption of education in Scotland?

Mr. Biffen: I do not entirely accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I shall be in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Clearly, this is a matter of great concern in Scotland.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I reinforce the point made. by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) about the Channel Tunnel Bill. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Kent in particular, district councils and many individual petitioners—quite apart from Members of Parliament—would feel a sense of outrage if the Select Committee's report could not be read or commented on by them prior to the Bill being considered in Committee on Tuesday? Yet again, it would


besmirch the Government's already tattered reputation for fair play in this matter if the Select Committee's report were not available for proper consideration in Committee.

Mr. Biffen: The Government have a rather good reputation in this matter. I was asked a plain, straight and serious question by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). I promised that I would look into it. The report will be available tomorrow. I shall also bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend examine the business for Tuesday and confirm that a number of subjects such as insider trading and fuel poverty, do not attract nearly as much support from Opposition Members as the early-day motions tabled by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) calling for debate on the Security Commission? Does my right hon. Friend not find it extremely surprising, as Opposition Members are concerned about fuel poverty and insider dealing, that they have never tabled any early-day motions about them? Perhaps the hon. Member for Workington is advising the alliance about what is to come on Wednesday.
I reassure my right hon. Friend that, as Leicester is a nuclear-fee zone, we do not expect that there will be any convoys carrying nuclear material through the city.

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his second point. Alas, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has fled the Chamber. It would have been a most magnificent put-down if I had been equipped with that information.
Over the years in this House, one learns to distinguish froth from substance. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a practitioner of froth. But, even so, froth can be poisonous. My hon. Friends are right to take account of the way in which the Order Paper has been used and the subject for which it has been used. They realise that there are matters of real substance here.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I refer to the serious case of my constituent, Miss Maureen McGoldrick, who is being pursued by the Brent Labour council—[Interruption]—no doubt to the delight of the hon. Member for, Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). First, she was pursued on an anti-racist basis. She now seems to be pursued by the Brent Labour council carrying out some sort of vicious personal, vendetta. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to come to the House and make a statement so that we can secure this woman's freedom from the clutches of the council and ensure proper education for the children in her school?

Mr. Biffen: I understand only too well the points that my hon. Friend has made and the very real sense of

commitment with which he made them. I know that he has supporters ranging beyond the Government Benches. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I cannot hold out to optimistic a hope that he will be able to make a statement, since the matter is substantially outside his control.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Mr. Peter Wright is a self-confessed traitor. He will be aware also that the British Government have brought an action against Mr. Wright to prevent publication of a book in Australia that will seriously undermine Britain's security interests. Will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to come to the House tonight to make a statement about the daily contacts that are taking place between the office of the Leader of the Opposition and lawyers acting for Mr. Wright? In particular, will he make a statement about whether it is desirable that the Crown's interest in this case should be undermined in the House by the Leader of the Opposition and those on the Opposition Benches?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has made a sombre and serious point. He has asked me to refer it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, with a view to having a statement made this evening. I shall do that.

Mr. Richard Holt: Following that lighthearted question, will my right hon. Friend use all his powers of persuasion to bring the appropriate Minister to the Dispatch Box to congratulate British Rail on its decision to reintroduce on its menus as from next Monday, the excellent northern dish, black pudding?

Mr. Biffen: We have discussed a range of issues this afternoon. I am glad that we are touching some more traditional aspects of our national life. I shall certainly look into the matter. Like my hon. Friend, I am a little uncertain as to who would wish to claim ministerial responsibility for this matter.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), in tabling vast numbers of early-day motions, is converting the Order Paper into something that is little better than junk mail? The effect is also to make this piece of paper thicker and thicker, day by day. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might suggest that the Order Paper be divided into separable sections—just like the Sunday newspapers. We might have a colour supplement, the editor of which could be the hon. Member for Workington. It would have the advantage of being a detachable piece of paper that we could throw away without having to bother to read it in the morning and suffer indigestion after breakfast. [Interruption.]

Mr. Biffen: That is porridge.
I take note of what my hon. Friend says. Again, that is a matter that could be considered by the Procedure Committee.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. I wish to ask you three questions. Following the suggestions relating to the possible misuse of the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in which, under the cloak of privilege afforded to the tabling of early-day motions, he has made libellous allegations against all sorts of innocent citizens, including Lord Rothschild, who I think is a former Socialist, will you ask the Procedure Committee to reconsider urgently the rules for the tabling of early-day motions? Will you be making a submission strongly disapproving of the hon. Gentleman's activities and recommending an end to this misuse? Will you urge the Procedure Committee to report its views to the House as soon as possible so that this misuse is ended at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: We had a long run on this issue this afternoon when I was asked about the Procedure Committee. I have already said to the House that, if the Procedure Committee asks me to give evidence to it, I shall be delighted to do so. As the House well knows, the Procedure Committee is minded to raise this matter and discuss it, and I shall be willing to give it my views.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: On a point of order, of which I have given you prior notice, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for undertaking to consider the points raised on the Channel Tunnel Bill, which will be considered in Standing Committee next week. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether it is proper for a Bill to be committed to Standing Committee after it has had a Select Committee hearing and before that Select Committee's report has been submitted to and considered by the House. Surely there is a problem, in that hon. Members have no opportunity to consider the detailed issues covered by the Select Committee's Special Report and possibly to suggest amendments in Standing Committee. The present timetable does not allow that. Is that proper?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of his point of order, because I have been able to look into it. The Channel Tunnel Bill was reported by the Select Committee on Tuesday 18 November. Under the Order of the House of 4 November, it thereupon stood recommitted to a Standing Committee without any further proceedings of the House. How the Standing Committee now proceeds is, of course, not a matter for me, but I understand that the Special Report of the Select Committee will be published tomorrow. I listened carefully to the questions put to the Leader of the House on that matter and to his replies.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn the House that there is an important debate ahead of us and points of order are bound to take time out of it.

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) raised a point of order in which he criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Will you confirm that it is a rule of the

House that, when criticism is to be made of a named Member, that Member should be given notice of it? Was notice given in this case?

Mr. Speaker: A number of references have been made this afternoon to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It is true that if unfavourable references are to be made to hon. Members that must be done by motion.

Mr. Ron Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Increasing numbers of constituents are writing to hon. Members on both sides of the House asking whether they can bring parties through the House. That is to be encouraged. This morning, there was chaos at the Norman Porch. I seek your help, Sir, to ascertain whether the check-in can be speeded up so that our constituents do not have to wait outside for at least an hour, and sometimes longer, to get through the checkpoint. I cast no aspersions on any member of staff. Everyone is doing his best to accommodate Members' constituents.

Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. Member's view that it is a very good thing that there is such an interest in this place. I shall certainly look into that matter.

Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to my question on Tuesday on severe weather payments. I have heard that the Government have switched the weather stations which will provide the basis of the data used in determining severe weather payments. Is it likely that the Government will tell the House exactly what they are doing?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but the point has been made.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help and guidance. Is it not a tradition and courtesy of the House that, apart from the practice of giving notice when naming an hon. Member, an hon. Member who intends attacking another hon. Member's borough council should give notice of that intent to the hon. Member concerned? You will be aware, Sir, that at least half a dozen Conservative Members have attacked the London borough of Brent at certain times, including today, without informing me. I sought the help of the Leader of the House who, with his usual courtesy, suggested that I needed no such help. Is it not a courtesy that an hon. Member who intends attacking my borough should inform me of that intention?

Mr. Speaker: The tradition of the House is that, if any hon. Member is to be mentioned, notice is, by convention, given to him. I know of no convention whereby, if an hon. Member's borough council is to be attacked, that practice would apply.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order about motions on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. When you meet the Procedure Committee and give evidence, if you are asked, will you bear in mind that all the motions now on the Order Paper have been thoroughly vetted by the Table Office and—because you are the head—by you? Is it not the case that any motion on the Order Paper is in order and that, as yet, no motion has been introduced which is an abuse of the Order Paper? Will you bear in mind also that any changes in that procedure would be unwelcome? As you might confirm, the early-day motions have been tabled principally


because we have not been able to obtain the right information from a Prime Minister who has been dodging the column at the Dispatch Box in answer to questions.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. Member's point, but he has asked me a question that I can answer. Anything now on the Order Paper has been screened by the Table Office and is in order. As I pointed out yesterday, there is a distinction between abuse of the Order Paper and misuse of the Order Paper, which is what concerns the House.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I apologise for speaking further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be in order for you to say that you deprecate the type of personal attacks that have been made on me, and the many others that have been discussed today? From now on, you could prevent hon. Members from making such personal attacks and starting them by means of bogus points of order.

Mr. Speaker: There is a very heavy day ahead of us. May I say, as a final word on this matter, that I hope that we shall stick to the conventions of the House and to the decent standards of the House, which seem to be very much in jeopardy as a result of today's exchanges.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Not even briefly.

Shipbuilding

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision, announced yesterday, by the Scott Lithgow company to declare redundant 1,600 employees.
This specific issue of huge job losses is of great importance, not only to my constituency but to Strathclyde and to Scotland as a whole. It is a matter worthy of urgent consideration because this decision will darken the lives of many families in Greenock and Port Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland. It is essential that we debate the issue now, because these redundancies form the latest chapter in a worsening story in the oil-related industries and the shipbuilding industry not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
Finally, I believe that it is within the Government's power to halt the seemingly remorseless job decline in those industries. That could be done by advancing public sector orders, by persuading British shipowners to buy British, and by changing present arrangements or bringing about a much improved EEC directive on shipbuilding.
Today is a very dark day for my constituency, and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to grant my request.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision, announced yesterday by the Scott Lithgow company to declare redundant 1,600 employees.
I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about that matter, and he knows that my only consideration in reviewing it is whether to give it precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, but I hope that he will find other ways of bringing it before the House.

Royal Ordnance Factory, Blackburn

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement today of 275 redundancies at the royal ordnance factory Blackburn, and the implications of this decision for the royal ordnance factory organisation as a whole.
When those 275 redundancies come into effect, employment at royal ordnance factory Blackburn will be down to 1,700. That is a reduction of nearly 1,000 jobs in six years. When the ROFs were under secure public ownership during the period of the Labour Government, employment in them in the United Kingdom as a whole, and in the Blackburn factory, rose. It is no coincidence that, since the Government embarked upon their policy of the privatisation of royal ordnance factories, there has been a haemorrhaging of employment in those factories across the United Kingdom. The matter is obviously specific and its importance lies in the significance of today's announcement, not only for my constituency, but for the 18,000 employees of ROF plc as a whole.
Five weeks ago an independent report on the future of the royal ordnance factories, by Mr. David Greenwood, of the centre for defence studies at Aberdeen university, predicted that the sell-off of the royal ordnance factories would lead to a loss of 6,000 jobs in two years. Today's announcement is the first stage in that process. The matter is so urgent that unless it is debated today, and Government policy reversed, many hundreds more of my constituents, and thousands more employees in the ROFs as a whole, will lose their jobs.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House

for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement today of 275 redundancies at royal ordnance factory Blackburn, and the implications of this decision for the royal ordnance factory organisation as a whole.
Again, I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said and fully appreciate his concern for his constituents. However, I regret to say that I do not consider the matter as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 15 DECEMBER

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours
Mr. Barry Henderson
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark

BILL PRESENTED

ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC RATES ETC. (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Rifkind, The Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr John MacKay, Mr. Michael Ancram and Mr. Ian Lang presented a Bill to abolish domestic rates in Scotland; to provide as to the finance of local government in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 9) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 1993) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I should tell the House that no fewer than 22 hon. Members have shown their interest in the debate that is to follow. I appeal to them for brief contributions in view of the late start.
I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is the fifth in a series of major reforms of the powers of the police and the courts that we have brought before the House during the past five years. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 established a new structure for dealing with young offenders. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 set out a clear framework for the exercise of police powers. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 established the Crown prosecution service to provide for greater consistency in prosecution decisions. The Public Order Act 1986 provided the police with strong powers to avert disorder and to protect citizens as they go about their lawful business.
I should like to make two comments on this massive programme of reform. First, I believe that it will be largely completed once the Bill is through Parliament. I realise that the pace of change has been fast, as happens under a radical Government. I know that that has created occasional strains for the police, the courts, the probation service and all those who help to run the criminal justice system. I hope that, after the Bill, there will now be a pause for disgestion, in relation to major new legislation.
I am sure that the electorate will not be foolish enough to elect a different Government who would throw it all back into the melting pot by politicising the police, stripping them of powers that we have given them, removing a crucial part of our defence against terrorism, and, no doubt, putting the police and prison services back to what, under Labour Administrations, has been their historical place at the bottom of that party's list of priorities.
Assuming that the Bill is passed and that disaster is averted, the services that I have mentioned will, before long, have a framework of law adapted to the needs of modern society within which, without further major change, they can steadily build up their effectiveness.
Secondly, reforming the law is not, of course, the whole answer. What the Government are now doing in response to the steady 30-year rise in crime that we share with most other European countries is to intensify all the different sections of our policy. Crime prevention, police strengths, police powers, safeguards for the citizen, inner city initiatives, investment in prisons, development of alternatives to prison, much closer international co-operation—anybody who has followed our decisions over recent months will remember how, one by one, we have built up all those policies, and we shall continue to do so.
Today, we ask the House to endorse in principle another crucial part of our plans—strengthening the legal framework of the criminal justice system.
I should like to take the House through the major elements of the Bill as succinctly as I can given its length and importance. Its main purpose is to strengthen the powers of the courts in relation to large-scale crime and to improve the treatment of victims.
Parts I and II of the Bill carry out most of the major recommendations of the Roskill committee on the reform of fraud trials. Fraud is a major crime with both direct and indirect costs. Indirectly it can, if unchecked, undermine the standing of our major financial institutions, the reputation of which is crucial to their central role in international markets.
The Roskill committee remarked on the fragmentation of effort that can hinder the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud. It recommended an examination of the merits of setting up a unified organisation for investigating and prosecuting complex fraud cases. The Bill provides the statutory framework for a serious fraud office, the director of which will act under the supervision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The new office will be responsible for the investigation and prosecution of the most serious and complex frauds and will work in close co-operation with the police. It will have powers to require questions to be answered and documents to be produced.
The committee also proposed streamlined court procedures for fraud trials. The Bill will establish a means by which the prosecutor may transfer serious and complex cases of fraud straight to the Crown court. The most controversial recommendation in the Roskill report was for a specially constituted tribunal to try the most complex frauds instead of a jury. With one dissentient, the committee argued a detailed case for establishing a fraud trials tribunal, chaired by a judge and with two suitably qualified lay members.
The problem of the uncomprehending juror, which the committee emphasised, cannot be brushed aside. There is a danger of random justice when the evidence in a trial is so technical and labyrinthine that the jurors have great difficulty in following it. On the other hand, it is a central principle that a man or woman charged with a serious offence should be tried by jury. We thought that the House would rightly hesitate before moving away from that principle.
We thought very carefully about the proposal for a fraud trials tribunal. We judged that the sensible course would be to give the other proposed changes, which are designed to make the jury's task easier, a chance to prove their worth. They include measures intended to improve the presentation of evidence, provision for preparatory hearings and changes in the rules of evidence. We do not rule out the possibility of returning some time to the idea of a special tribunal, but we shall not be pursuing it in the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the proposal to set up a serious fraud office is particularly welcome, but in the light of the growing size and international aspects of fraud, does he agree that the estimates in the Bill of the costs of the serious fraud office are likely to be underestimates? Will he not rule out looking at a tribunal in future, purely to attack the problem of the internationalisation of fraud?

Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly not rule out looking again at the idea of a special tribunal. I am not sure that it follows directly from my hon. Friend's question, but I shall see whether I can find the connection.
Part II, which makes extensive changes to the rules of evidence in criminal proceedings, also comes largely from the Roskill report. The changes make possible greater use of documents as evidence and the more frequent taking of evidence abroad. The changes in this part of the Bill are a very substantial response to the Roskill report. They should provide a crisper, tighter and more effective system for the prosecution and trial of major frauds. Taken together with other Government legislation to strengthen the regulatory framework, including this Session's Banking Bill, they should do much to boost confidence in our financial institutions, at home and abroad.
It would make no sense to have different rules of evidence for difference offences. Part II therefore extends to all criminal proceedings. It also includes provision for children who are victims or witnesses in trials—

Mr. Iain Mills: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, I hope that he will cover industrial counterfeiting. I am sure that he is aware that there is considerable concern about industrial counterfeiting following the Chanel case. Will he ensure that clause 12, with the provisions following the Roskill committee's recommendations, allows that conspiracy in the United Kingdom to counterfeit abroad shall be indictable here? Will he cover the communication of information and confiscation of the profits of counterfeiting, which come under clause 44 and other parts of the Bill—if not now, perhaps in Committee?

Mr. Hurd: I know my hon. Friend's concern about that matter. The creation of new offences to deal with counterfeiting goods will be outside the scope of the Bill. That falls within the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry because of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. I know that my hon. Friend is discussing his proposal with the Secretary of State. I shall make sure that what my hon. Friend has said today is brought to the latter's attention.
I was referring to the provision in the Bill for children who are victims or witnesses in trials of violent or sexual offences to give their evidence on live closed circuit television. That will spare them the ordeal of testifying in court in the presence of the accused. I hope that that provision, while still providing for cross-examination—this is an important point—will enable more cases of child abuse to be brought before the courts.
Part III makes changes in the jurisdiction and powers of the courts. Three offences—driving while disqualified, taking a vehicle without consent and common assault—can now be tried either summarily or on indictment. Under the Bill they would be reclassified as summary only. A fourth, criminal damage, is made triable by the magistrates only where the value of the damage is less than £2,000, compared with the present threshold of £400.
None of those offences is to be regarded lightly. Driving while disqualified, in particular, is always a serious matter. Disqualification will have been imposed as a result of a serious offence, and continuing to drive involves the wilful disregard of a court order. But the House will be aware of the very considerable increase in the business of the Crown courts and the delays that result from that. The proposals

will remove about 5,000 cases a year, which is just over 5 per cent., from the Crown courts and help to relieve a little of the formidable pressure.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: I should like to continue a little. With his ingenuity, the hon. and learned Gentleman may find a way of intervening again. I have already cut out parts of my speech because of the lateness of the start of the debate. I must carry on, but I shall give way later if the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to try again.
The House will know that we have been wrestling with the problem of the damage caused to public confidence by the occasional apparently over-lenient sentence. The effect of such cases is wholly disproportionate to their number because of the publicity that they attract. The White Paper published in March set out three options. Under the first, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general would be able to refer Crown court sentences for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The purpose would be to influence future practice and not to place an individual defendant in jeopardy. That was in essence the proposal that my predecessor brought forward in the Prosecution of Offences Bill, which did not find favour in another place. The second approach would also involve the reference of cases to the Court of Appeal, but where the court's view was that the sentence was inadequate, under that option, it would be able to increase it. The third approach would build on, and give statutory force to, the practice whereby the Court of Appeal hands down guidelines on sentencing, by requiring the Judicial Studies Board to publish the guidance and disseminate it among the judges.
We spent much time thinking hard about the three possibilities. Any scheme in which the offender stood to have his sentence increased would raise real difficulties. The power to refer cases would need to be used even-handedly, wherever a sentence seemed out of line, rather than as a safety valve in exceptional cases. There would be problems in identifying such cases at the centre; it would be clearly unfair for such a scheme to operate only in cases which happen to have attracted much publicity. The role of the prosecution—which has hitherto eschewed arguing for a particular sentence—would be significantly changed in a way that I know some would find deeply repugnant.
When we published the White Paper, we thought that the idea of giving the Judicial Studies Board a more active role was the most promising option. On further reflection, we found it less attractive. There was a fear that by following that road, the Executive would be trenching on the independence of the judiciary. Sensible guidelines, sensibly applied, still seem to me to be the key to good sentencing practice. I do not rule out the possibility of putting the Judicial Studies Board on a statutory footing at some future time. But the more we thought about the arguments that had so moved those who spoke against the earlier proposal in another place, the more we became convinced that they lacked foundation. A procedure in which, in exceptional cases, the Attorney-General was free to use an individual case that had raised genuine public concern to trigger a wide consideration of the relevant sentencing principles by the Court of Appeal seemed to us practicable, sound and unobjectionable in principle.
That is why clause 29 creates a procedure under which the Attorney-General would be able, with leave, to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal for its opinion on the principles that should be observed in sentencing in similar cases in the future. This proposal and that made in the Prosecution of Offences Bill are not quite the same. The procedure would be expressly confined to cases that appeared to my right hon. and learned Friend to raise questions of public importance. The leave of the court would be required, and the court's attention would be focused on the lessons to be learned for the future.
Those proposals do not involve politicians in the day-to-day business of sentencing. That is a matter for the judiciary and must remain so. However, we have to ensure that the courts have an adequate range of powers available to them. Parliament has approved increases in the maximum sentences for attempted rape and trafficking in class A drugs during the past two years. The Bill similarly proposes to increase the maximum penalty for carrying firearms during the commission of crime to life imprisonment. There has been some discussion on that proposal and some criticism of it on the ground that it would remove the incentive not to pull the trigger. That is misconceived. The proposal is for a maximum, not a mandatory, sentence, and the court can differentiate. Other things being equal, the courts are bound to regard the use of a firearm as the more serious offence and to sentence accordingly. The effect of our proposal is that the highest penalties will be available for the worst cases. Far from weakening the deterrent against pulling the trigger, the proposal is a strong incentive for the firearm not to be there in the first place.

Sir John Farr: In connection with this narrow and rather important point, has the Minister consulted both the police authorities and those who hold unlicensed recreational firearms about the proposals?

Mr. Hurd: I must have notice about the extent of consultation. We have had extensive consultation with the police at all levels, as my hon. Friend knows. I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to check that point and deal with it when he replies.

Mr. Bill Michie: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hurd: I shall not give way just yet as I wish to get on, but I shall give way before I sit down.
I now wish to talk about the important proposals for confiscation. They follow the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 which provided the courts with powers to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking. Parliament, across party lines, gave a fair wind to that proposal. We stressed that drug trafficking was a special case, because it was so profitable and because of the revulsion the public rightly feels at the destruction which it wreaks. We made it clear that we wished to move on to cover other offences but would use a different model. That is what we have done.
In part IV we have departed from the drug trafficking provisions scheme in several important ways while still introducing what we believe will be an effective scheme to allow the proceeds of highly profitable crime to be seized. It is an affront to justice that a criminal should, having

served his sentence, live comfortably on the fruits of his crimes. The new powers will be available to the courts where the profits involved appear to exceed £10,000. There will be a procedure for freezing the offender's assets before trial and once a confiscation order has been made, the High Court will have the power to order the realisation of any of the defendant's property in order to satisfy the order in full. These are important new powers for the courts which will strengthen their hands in dealing with big-time criminals.
Part V deals with compensation for victims. Clause 71 extends the circumstances in which the courts can make a compensation order against an offender, to include for the first time compensation for the dependants of those fatally injured. It also requires the courts—this is a substantial change—to give reasons in all cases where they have power to order compensation, but decide not to do so. We wish to ensure that the possibility of compensation is not overlooked. Clause 72 allows the proceeds of the sale of property forfeited by the offender to be used to compensate the victim.
A major flaw in the criminal justice system in the past has been the extent to which the needs of victims have been overlooked. We are, step by step, putting that right. We want the victim to be back centre stage. The position of the victim was improved by the Criminal Justice Act 1982. The police are giving greater priority to ensuring a more sensitive reception for victims, especially of crimes such as rape. I was especially glad recently to announce a grant of £9 million over three years to help the development of local victim support schemes in addition to the help we have been giving the national association for some time.

Mr. David Clelland: Does the Home Secretary agree that a person who is arrested, charged with a serious crime and held in prison for a considerable period and who suffers from severe mental stress to the extent that he is under permanent psychiatric supervision but is subsequently found to be innocent of any crime is also a victim of crime? Does the Home Secretary agree that there is no provision in the Bill to compensate such victims?

Mr. Hurd: No, such a case would not come within the Bill. It would come under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, where the procedure for compensation resulting from complaints against the police was thoroughly examined.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established in 1964 by the Conservative Government. It is widely recognised as a tangible expression of society's concern for the victims of violent crime. In the last financial year, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board received nearly 40,000 applications and paid out some £42 million in compensation. The number of eligible applications continues to grow. I announced earlier this month that an additional £114 million will be available to the board over the next three years. Taken together with the increase to £550 in the minimum award, this should enable the board to meet growth in demand and, importantly, achieve some reduction in arrears.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has conveyed to me the anxieties of the Police Federation about an adjustment in the scope of the scheme which affects the treatment of accidental injuries suffered by the police. I notice from the Order Paper that the Opposition have now latched on to that point. [Interruption.] That is chronologically correct.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: That is most opprobrious of the Home Secretary. The Police Federation came to us and raised the matter with us in exactly the same way as it raised it with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). It is a serious point.

Mr. Hurd: It is a serious point and it was raised with me first by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I have received a constructive letter directly from Mr. Peter Tanner. Later I observed that the Opposition had put the issue on the Order Paper. I have related the chronology of the matter accurately and not in the least opprobriously.
Such accidental injuries suffered by the police are already largely outside the scheme and count as industrial injuries. But our acceptance of a recommendation of the interdepartmental committee would remove the already very residual extent to which the scheme covered accidental injuries. I have arranged to meet the Police Federation soon to discuss that, and I hope to be able to satisfy its doubts. I shall certainly keep the House informed and I agree that it is an important matter.
The increase in the lower limit for compensation has been criticised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). To that, I would respond that there has always been such a limit to exclude lesser injuries and to enable effort to be concentrated on the more serious cases. It is not possible to give a hard and fast rule on the size of award which results from particular injuries. But, in general, awards for such injuries as the loss of a front tooth would normally appreciably exceed £550—the new proposed limit—while wounds without lasting effect or scarring, such as minor cuts, sprains, bruising or abrasions would fall below the limit. The question is not whether one has a limit but where one sets the figure, and £550 seems to strike a reasonable balance.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the psychological injury, often suffered, for example, by old people who have been mugged but who are not visibly injured, will be regarded as serious injury although there may be only subjective symptoms, so that people who suffer such psychological injury will be included in the criminal injuries compensation scheme?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the board follows the practice of the civil courts in general and I imagine that it would do so in this particular. I shall look into the practice that results from that principle.
Over the years the scheme has evolved into a new social service. We are now spending three and a half times as much in real terms on it as was spent in 1978–79. The number of people receiving compensation has risen far faster than the increase in violent crime. We are now putting still further resources into the scheme.
If we are to use these resources to best effect and begin to work off the arrears that have built up, we must concentrate on those injuries which substantially affect people's well-being. If the Opposition, faced with the facts and figures, pretend otherwise, they are simply playing a silly political game with an important service which was negligible in their time, but which we have built up and on which we now plan further substantial progress.
Part VI makes several changes to the law on juries. The most controversial is the abolition of the defence right of peremptory challenge. That has been steadily reduced over

the century and the present proposal takes the reduction in the number of challenges from the seven to the three that was enacted under the Labour Government to its logical conclusion.
It seems to the Government to be wrong in principle that jurors should be removed without reasons being given, and unsatisfactory that in cases with large numbers of defendants the composition of the jury should be radically changed.

Mr. David Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to my hon. Friend when I have finished this point.
The wholesale removal in such cases of members of the public of whom the defendants know nothing beyond their name and appearance and who there is no reason to suppose would be other then impartial does not enhance public confidence in the jury system. Indeed, it undermines the random quality of the jury system which is its essence.

Mr. Ashby: I know that my right hon. Friend believes that justice should be even-handed, yet I notice that this provision does not take away the prosecution's right of stand by. Has he considered that aspect, especially in relation to the European convention on human rights which provides for equality between the prosecution and the defence?

Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that point. The accused who has a substantive reason for believing that a particular juror is likely to be biased against him, will be able, as now, to give his reasons to the court and to seek the juror's removal, using the procedure known as challenge for cause. We have accepted that the abolition of peremptory challenge will have implications for the much more rarely used procedure under which the prosecution can stand jurors by for the Crown, giving reasons only when the panel of jurors has been exhausted. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is preparing guidelines which would confine the use of the stand by procedure to strictly limited categories of cases. These will be made known during the passage of the Bill and the House will want to look at them carefully.
Clause 84 widens the base from which jurors are drawn by some 2 million by increasing the upper age limit from 65 to 70. People in that age range will not be required to serve, if they do not wish to do so, but the change will enable recently retired people to carry out this important civic duty. They have a great deal to contribute in terms of experience and maturity and I hope that that change will be widely welcomed and uncontroversial.
In part VIII the Bill returns to the theme of combating major crime and revises and re-enacts the law on extradition. Our present law is plainly out of date as crime becomes increasingly international, so all countries with a democratic system and a reputable legal system need to combine against crime. We need to do much more to buttress the international rule of law and to prevent fugitive criminals from using frontiers as a means of evading punishment. At present, there is the strict requirement that the country requesting extradition from Britain must establish a prima facie case against the fugitive in our courts before its request may be granted. That is a considerable impediment because of differences between our legal system and those of many other


countries, including our European partners. A safeguard will be needed and retained to prevent fugitives from being extradited if there is a danger of them facing arbitrary justice. If those changes are made, the United Kingdom will at last be able to accede to the European convention on extradition. We would intend to do that.
Part X contains a variety of measures of which the most significant abolishes the anonymity of defendants in rape cases and extends the statutory protection given to rape victims' anonymity so that it runs from the moment of the offence, rather than from the moment of charge, as it does at present. There may be common ground on this. It does away with the bogus tit-for-tat principle by which the victim and the defendant were put on the same footing.
Two proposals are not in the Bill because we are consulting on them, but I expect that they will find a place in it before the Bill is much older. As the House knows, we recently published a White Paper containing our reactions to the Prior report on prison discipline and we intend to bring forward proposals in Committee, if the Bill gets its Second Reading. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will have read the White Paper and will know the way in which our minds are moving.
In addition, I expect to publish soon the consultative document on proposals for changes in the normal periods for remands in custody.

Dr. David Owen: The Home Secretary is dealing with miscellaneous provisions and he must know of the great concern about weapons, knives, crossbows and the martial arts. In Committee will he consider dealing with the question of control and banning of many of these odious weapons?

Mr. Hurd: We look at that the whole time and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn out attention to it recently. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 the police have for the first time the power to stop and search if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting the existence of an offensive weapon. Shortly I shall discuss with the London branch of the Police Federation the problems that it says it has in that respect and I shall listen carefully. Obviously, I shall listen carefully to any points made by right hon. and hon. Members. We have proposals ready on crossbows—I do not think that I am offending the rules of the House by saying this—and I hope that there may be an opportunity to make progress on that this Session. On the range of weapons, there are always problems of definition. It is already an offence to possess offensive weapons and I do not believe that that is sufficiently widely known. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the matter. We must keep it constantly under review to see whether the law can be strengthened and improved.
The Bill fits into our general strategy against crime. It is a common Opposition trick when they have nothing particular to say to criticise the Government on the grounds that, whatever they are doing, they should be doing something else. It is not a logical criticism of the Bill to say that while it deals with fraud, firearms offences and major crime, it does not deal with burglary. Equally, when we take action, as we have done and do, through crime prevention and strengthening the police to tackle burglary, it is not logical to criticise us because we are not dealing

with major crime. The Opposition, especially the right hon. Member for Gorton, hop about in that way from one stance to another, while failing to take the one action which they alone can take, to haul back and repudiate the anti-police activities of councils under Labour control. It is remarkable that here, where the Opposition have no power, they chatter about great things for the future, but where they have power, their friends too often use it to undermine and isolate the police.

Mr. Harry Cohen: rose—

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I have almost reached the end of my speech.
We shall reinforce and intensify all the different parts of our policy. It is crucially important that the House should be able to look at the policy as a whole. That is why we have published today a criminal justice working paper which I commend to the House. When they read it, right hon. and hon. Members will find that it is not in any way complacent or self-congratulatory. We have tried to pull together the analyses of crime and to show how our different policies act in harmony. I am sure that the combination of policies which we have set out is the only sure and sensible way of edging back the level of crime. Obviously, it will be a long business and it must involve, not only the Government and the criminal justice system, but parents, teachers, the media and all those who in different ways fill the minds of the young, particularly teenagers. I am convinced that if we remain clear-headed and steady, as a society we shall succeed in this task.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill within whose framework substantially fewer crime victims will be eligible for compensation, which specifically reduces eligibility for compensation for police officers and members of fire brigades injured in the course of duty, and which is entirely lacking in any coherent approach towards combatting the record and worsening crime wave from which this country has suffered since the return of the present Government.
This year, 1986, one of our fellow citizens became the victim of the 25 millionth crime committed since the Government came to office. Already under the Prime Minister 10 million more crimes have been committed than were committed under the Labour Government, whom she accused of being unable to maintain law and order. Therefore, the Bill must be judged by the effect that it is likely to have on stemming that terrifying increase in crime and on making more likely the prospect of remedying the alarming 65 per cent. failure rate in clearing up crime under this Government, this Home Secretary and this Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister had no doubt about the importance of this Bill. Two weeks ago, in the debate on the Queen's Speech, she described it as the "centrepiece" of the Government's legislative programme, and promised that it would provide
a further strengthening of society's defences against the criminal."—[Official Report, 12 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 21.]
Like all the Prime Minister's utterances on law and order, this statement was long on over-ambitious hyperbole and


grievously short on truth. Far from meriting the label of "centrepiece", the Bill is a ragbag of notions, some good, some had, but most irrelevant.
The Law Society was right to say of the White Paper from which the Bill stems:
these proposals do not suggest a coherent approach to the criminal justice system. They are symptomatic of vacillation and dithering.
It is clear that to pad out the Bill's 128 clauses and 10 schedules, the pigeonholes at the Home Office have been ransacked. Hence, no doubt, the highly pressing provisions on the burning of crop residues and the obsession in the Bill with repealing successive Diseases of Fish Acts, starting with that of 1937.
The Bill is slovenly in its drafting. In clause 98 and schedule 2, it requires that various statements should be drafted in what is described, but sensibly not defined, as "ordinary language". It thus accurately implies that the rest of the Bill is drafted in extraordinary language, much of it incomprehensible even to those who drafted it, if the litter of misprints is anything to go by. On the same page, it is referred to in one line as the Criminal Justice Act 1986 and in another as the Criminal Justice Act 1987. They had better decide what year it will be passed.

Mr. Derek Spencer: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way.
The slovenly drafting leaves one page literally incomprehensible, and we shall move amendments to put that right at the appropriate point. I doubt whether the Home Secretary has read the proofs of the Bill with the care that he devotes to those of his novels, which are certainly better plotted and undoubtedly have better endings.
Some of the proposals will have our support. These include the establishment of a serious fraud office, the videoing of evidence from child victims, a provision very much in line with the proposals that we make in the Labour party policy document, "Protecting our People", the enhanced protection of the anonymity of rape victims and the ending of anonymity for rape defendants. We are not opposed in principle to the confiscation of assets from those who gain in crime, but we note that the system is markedly different from that relating to drug trafficking offences. We are surprised that the Government are so confident in going ahead with this scheme without experience of how the Drug Trafficking Offences Act will work. The provisions for this—24 clauses; a Bill on their own—are so convoluted that there are serious doubts as to whether they are operable. We have misgivings about the inadequate provision for restoration and compensation when confiscation has taken place wrongfully or erroneously.
We deplore strongly the fact that the Bill is before the House for Second Reading without containing the provisions, to which the Home Secretary referred, on the prison grievance and disciplinary systems. It is wrong that the House should be asked to give a Second Reading when these important proposals are to be put in as an afterthought, particularly in the light of the way in which the Home Secretary has botched prison policy in the recent past. In the light of these failures, the Bill is far too free in creating new imprisonable offences, to cram yet more people into our prisons.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the much publicised fresh start that the Home

Secretary is trying to impose on prison officers is being rejected by every prison officer branch? Sadly, that is the backlash. Prison officers are responding to the way that they have been treated by the Government, and my right hon. Friend is alluding to this.

Mr. Kaufman: I have had meetings with members of the Prison Officers Association in prisons that I have recently visited, and there is great bitterness among prison officers about the way in which they have been treated by the Government, ever since the degrading events earlier this year. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.
A number of the proposals in the Bill are bad, and we shall oppose them. It is wrong, in part II, to set aside the hearsay rule, which prevents reliance on secondhand evidence. It is vindictive that overstaying, against which there are already sufficient remedies and penalties, should be turned into a continuing offence. It is dangerous to remove the prima facie rule from extradition. It could pander to the dubious legality prevalent in authoritarian states. In particular, we oppose retention of the Home Secretary's power to send someone to his death in another land.
We deplore the Home Secretary's stubbornness in following his predecessor's deserved rebuff on enacting a power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal when sentences are regarded as too lenient. The poor old Attorney-General has been having a hard enough time lately as it is. It is wrong to erode the nature of his office still further by seeking to involve him in influencing sentencing decisions.
We oppose the abolition of the peremptory challenge in jury trials. There is no evidence that peremptory challenge has been misused. Much to the Government's discredit, there is no evidence on the subject at all. In March, when the White Paper was published, it told us:
The Director of Public Prosecutions is now monitoring the use of peremptory challenge and prosecution standby".
It went on to promise:
The figures thus gathered will be available to inform debate when the Criminal Justice Bill is before Parliament.
It is eight months later, the Criminal Justice Bill is before Parliament and we do not have the evidence that the Government promised.
On 9 July, when I questioned the Home Secretary about the monitoring exercise, he replied:
the results will be available for informed debate when the House considers the proposals that we set before it."—[Official Report, 9 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 306.]
The Home Secretary did not even refer to that monitoring exercise today, nor did he refer to his promise, which he has broken, that the monitoring exercise results will be available while we are discussing the Bill. That makes all the more deplorable the change that he proposes.

Mr. Ashby: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that those figures will in any event be hopeless and unusable because all that has been done is that people from the Crown prosecution service are noting whether the challenges are to a male or female, and the age of the person. It is not being done in relation to the composition of the jury, and there is no reasoning or anything like that. These figures will be hopeless and useless, and no doubt that is why they have not been referred to.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman commands unique respect for the way in which he approaches these matters.


I accept absolutely what he says about the poor quality of the figures. However, whatever the quality of the material, it was promised and that promise has been broken. We would at least have been able to judge its quality if the Government had adhered to their commitment and provided the information.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no evidence that the right of peremptory challenge has been misused, but is he not aware of evidence to that effect in connection with the Cyprus secrets trial?

Mr. Kaufman: That is not evidence. That is the hon. Gentleman's personal and bizarre preoccupation, which is a very different matter from evidence.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what little evidence there is about peremptory challenge exists only in cases where there is more than one defendant, and that that is where complaints have arisen? There is absolutely no evidence of any complaint where there is only one defendant.

Mr. Kaufman: Once I made the great mistake of not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. After that, I learnt my lesson, and I am now very glad indeed that I learnt that lesson. He has made a very important point. I shall come to the very important matter of multiple cases in which there are several defendants.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that interventions are made only at the expense of the speeches of other hon. Members.

Mr. Kaufman: I take into account what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall abide by your request.
With regard to peremptory challenge, the Law Society is opposed to the change. It says:
This right can be the only means of removing patently unsuitable jurors.
Opponents of peremptory challenge may be irritated with its use by the defence. However, it has been wisely said:
It is part of a defence lawyer's role to try to select a jury that he thinks will give his client the best chance of acquittal.
Although the Roskill committee suggested the abolition of peremptory challenge, it sympathised with the need of a defendant to have some method of ensuring an appropriate racial or sexual mix on the jury. In pursuit of exactly that objective in the case of Banf and others in Bristol Crown court in 1981, Judge Stocker ruled that the defence could and should use all their peremptory challenges—there were 12 defendants—to ensure that there were black people on the jury.
Abolition of peremptory challenge may lead to the overuse and even, perhaps, to the misuse of challenge for cause. Its use may now expand in our courts. The need for the retention of peremptory challenge was most movingly summed up in "Blackstone", who said:
peremptory challenge: a provision full of that tendernes and humanity to prisoners, for which our English laws are justly famous. This is grounded on two reasons. 1. As everyone must be sensible what sudden impressions and unaccountable prejudices we are apt to conceive upon the bare looks and gestures of another; and how necessary it is, that a prisoner (when put to defend his life) should have a good opinion of his jury".
That was in the days when there were capital sentences, but a life sentence is a fairly severe sentence, too. I hope that the Home Secretary will not scoff at its importance.

Mr. Hurd: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall give way to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting from "Blackstone" a passage that we put into the White Paper in order to show that there was a time when the balance of the system was tilted against the defendant, when sentences were very heavy and when in other respects the defendant had less than a fair chance. It is very hard to argue that that is true today. That is why, throughout the centuries, the right of peremptory challenge has been steadily reduced.

Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary's intervention does not carry much credence. If he does not regard a life sentence as very heavy, he is somewhat lacking in the imagination with which we had credited him until now.
"Blackstone" then says:
the want of which might totally disconcert him; the law wills not that he should be tried by any one man against whom he has conceived a prejudice, even without being able to assign a reason for such his dislike. 2. Because, upon challenges for cause shown, if the reason assigned prove insufficient to set aside the juror, perhaps the bare questioning his indifference may sometimes provoke a resentment; to prevent all ill consequences from which, the prisoner is still at liberty, if he pleases, peremptorily to set him aside.
Those are very important words and I am very sorry that the Government, being aware of them, have decided to ignore them.
We, with many others, are worried about the new life sentence for carrying firearms, even replica firearms, in furtherance of crime. Most curiously, this afternoon the Home Secretary justified the new penalty by assuring us that it is unlikely to be used. But that does not solve the problem. It will be on the statute book, there to be used and outside the Home Secretary's control.
The Association of County Councils succinctly makes the point that there will be the same maximum penalty for carrying and for using firearms. It cannot be denied that such a development could put police officers and members of the public at even greater risk than at present. The Police Federation has written to me about this. It says:
We fear that the criminal who believes he faces life imprisonment if he is caught in possession of a weapon will be tempted to use it in order to escape arrest.
Its spokesman has said, very tellingly:
Laws that lay down maximum sentences, which will not be enforced, make a mockery of the life sentence… The danger must be that the criminal, trapped while carrying a gun, does not appear to face any deterrent from using it or from killing.
This is an ill-thought-out proposal which could place at risk the lives of police officers—not that this Government seem to have much regard for the lives or wellbeing of police officers, if their disgraceful proposals on compensation are anything to go by.
At the time of the autumn statement earlier this month, the Government's propaganda machine made much of what was depicted as increased provision for criminal injuries compensation, and the poor, gullible press was taken in by these claims. In fact, the Government are making the predicament of thousands of crime victims much worse. That is saying something, considering how the chances of obtaining compensation under this Government have already seriously deteriorated.
When the Labour Government left office in 1979, 26,299 cases were pending before the Criminal Injuries


Compensation Board. By the end of last month, that queue had more than doubled to 60,000. People are having to wait for deplorably long periods for their cases to be settled. Of cases settled in 1985–86, 30 per cent. had had to wait for over a year. At least 12,000 of those still in the queue have already been waiting for more than a year.
The reason for this is, first, a massive rise in crime, which has led more people to make claims. Secondly, the Government are starving the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board of staff. Two years ago the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended staff increases. The staff has hardly been increased at all. The result is that, while in 1981 there was one member of staff for every 171 claimants, there is now one member of staff for every 212 claimants. The work load is impossible. That is despite the fact that the Government have taken action to reduce the queue, not by providing the necessary staff to help the claimants but by depriving thousands of potential claimants of the right to claim.
In 1977, the Labour Government increased the lower limit for eligibility to claim from £50 to £150. This was the first increase for 13 years. In announcing it, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made it clear that
the increase is intended to restore its original value without changing the scope and purpose of the scheme."—[Official Report, 15 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 146.]
In four years, not 13, this Government had already twice increased that lower limit upwards, to £400. After seven years, they are planning the third increase, to £550. An increase of £80 would have been enough to keep up with inflation, but the Government are imposing an increase of twice that amount. In any case, two years ago, the Select Committee on Home Affairs denounced the previous increase to £400 as "excessive". It recommended:
the £250 minimum which was in force until last year should be used as the base rate for further cost of living increases rather than the current figure of £400.
Last year, in their response to the Select Committee, the Government said that this recommendation would be borne in mind by the Government in considering any future increase in the level of the lower limit. That response was hypocritical, and this new increase proves it to have been hypocritical.
In its press statement three weeks ago the Home Office claimed that the increase to £550 is intended to concentrate resources on the more seriously injured applicants. That deliberately deceptive rubbish means that thousands of others will be deprived of the rights to compensation. in 1984–85, 28 per cent. of awards were below £550. So the Government, who snivel on about crime and victims, are actually penalising victims—many thousands of them. Clearly, they are doing that as a covert way of cutting the queue as well as a means of saving money. Their claim is that their changes will cut the queue by possibly 5,000 a year for three years, but at the end of that three years, even if we accept the Government's forecast as accurate, that would still leave the queue twice as long as it was when the Government came to office.
And to save what? The awards to those receiving less than £550 in 1984–85 came to only £2,300,000. That money is minute in terms of Government expenditure, but it means a lot to individual crime victims. The country should note the Government's priorities. Nearly one third of crime victims are to lose their chance of compensation to save a couple of million pounds while £100 million of

taxpayers' money is being wasted on the privatisation of British Gas. All that squandered taxpayers' money should have been spent on helping victims of crime.
But there is one special group of crime victims whom the Government are deliberately damaging, and that is the police. Clause 74(7) excludes police officers altogether from compensation if they are injured accidentally while attempting to apprehend an offender, or preventing an offence from being committed. It could also harmfully affect many others including members of fire brigades, nurses and transport staff. That change would mean that a police officer who is permanently disabled or discharged from service following an accidental injury, as covered in the subsection, sustained as the result of attempting to make an arrest or prevent a crime, would receive no recompense for such an injury. He would lose entitlement to compensation for loss of earnings which could run into thousands of pounds.
In the House not long ago the Prime Minister paid a smarmy tribute to the police in the specific context of police who had sustained injuries in the course of duty. She proclaimed:
We support the police in the way in which they carry out their duties."—[Official Report, 8 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 254.]
Empty words like that are easy to utter, but the same Prime Minister who uttered those words has her name on this Bill which will deprive hundreds of police of the right to compensation. Those words should stick in her throat.
I make it clear that the Labour party will oppose that subsection. We hope that Tory members of the Standing Committee will have the decency to vote with us and get rid of it. If they do not, I pledge here and now that the Labour Government will restore justice to the police, just as they will extend the right of compensation to the other crime victims now being deprived of it by the Government.

Mr. Hurd: That is another pledge.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, that is another pledge. Add them up. I am ready to make pledges to the crime victims that the Government are bilking of their right to compensation. Yes, I am ready to make that pledge anywhere. That is a priority pledge, if the Home Secretary wants to know—a priority pledge to the police and to crime victims. [Interruption.] We have said that we shall reduce the level and we shall look with care at the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs of reducing it to the base level for inflation purposes of £250.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I, if not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, am rather glad to hear the pledge that the right hon. Gentleman has just given. However, I should like him to be precise. Is he saying that he will return to the present position—that where police officers take exceptional risks they should receive compensation—or is he saying that he will go all the way back to the position which existed some years ago when that test did not have to be met?

Mr. Kaufman: I am certainly saying that we shall restore the present position, but we want to go further than that. In our policy document, "Protecting our People", we said:
After full consultation, Labour will introduce a scheme to ensure that police officers injured in the course of duty receive compensation without having to apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We will ensure that the families of police officers killed in the course of their duty also receive appropriate financial support.


When we return to office—I give this commitment to the hon. Gentleman—we shall urgently consult the Police Federation in an effort to remedy any feelings of injustice that police officers may have on these matters. We strongly believe—my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersnith (Mr. Soley) and I have considered this carefully with the Labour party—that it is unfair that the police should not have proper entitlement to criminal injuries compensation.

Sir John Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way any more. I have been asked by Mr. Deputy Speaker not to give way. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that usually I would give way to him.
Yesterday—the Home Secretary has referred to it—nicely in time for the debate, the Home Secretary published, at public expense, a glossy Tory party propaganda document which, using rigged statistics and distorted diagrams, tries to play down the crime increase under the Government.
For a Government or a Tory party document, it breaks new ground because it contains jokes. On page 40, in a chapter satirically entitled "The Way Ahead" it says:
If terrorists win substantive concessions from a democratic government in one country they are likely to give encouragement to terrorists in other countries.
That cannot be meant seriously in the light of the Prime Minister's statement a dozen days ago in Washington when, referring to President Reagan's sale of arms to Iran, she said:
I believe implicitly in the President's total integrity on that subject.
The Home Secretary may not have read that document. I offer him the excuse that it is likely that he does not read a great many of the documents that come out in his name,. but this strange document makes crime in Britain seem a remote possibility indeed.
In the document the Home Secretary says that the "statistically average person" can expect an assault resulting in injury "once every century". That reassurance will be a source of great comfort to the 750,000 people in England and Wales alone who have been victims of violent crime since 1979.
The document says that our standard Thatcherite citizen can expect a burglary in the home once every 35 years. That, of course, makes everything perfectly all right for the victims of the 7 million burglaries which have taken place in Britain since the Government came to power.
The document says that there are
no simple solutions to the problem of crime".
That was not what the 1979 Tory manifesto said when it proclaimed:
Surer detection means surer deterrence".
But under the Government, detection has become less sure with a fall in the clear-up rate from 42 per cent. to 35 per cent.
The document depicts crime as some natural phenomenon such as the tides or the seasons. The Home Secretary said:
The growth in recorded crime seems to have a momentum of its own which has hitherto defied the efforts of any Government to check or reverse it.
That is rich coming from a party whose 1979 manifesto implied that the then much lower level of crime was the fault of the Labour Government.
The document says:
Crime defies the efforts of any Government to check or reverse it.
That is odd coming from a Government whose 1983 manifesto claimed:
Already street crime is being reduced and public confidence increased in some of the worst inner city areas.
That is a bit of a contrast with this document, which says:
The risk of crime is not evenly spread amongst the community. The British Crime Survey shows that people living in inner city areas face a risk of being burgled between three and six times greater than residents of other neighbourhoods. Though high-risk communities comprise just over a tenth of households in England and Wales, residents of these areas were the victims of a third of the burglaries, a quarter of the car thefts and a third of the street crime…reported to the British Crime Survey.
That is the party that said, in 1983:
street crime is being reduced and public confidence increased in some of the worst inner city areas.
The fact is that, under this Government, 10 million more crimes have been committed than under the Labour Government, whom the Prime Minister used to blame for crime. Under this Government, the incidence of theft has risen nearly twice as fast as under Labour. The incidence of robbery has risen nearly three times as fast as under Labour, and that of burglary has risen more than four times as fast as under Labour. The crime figures for England and Wales for the first six months of this year show that the crime crisis in worsening. Compared with last year, in the second quarter of 1986, all crime was up by 8 per cent., violent crime by 6 per cent., theft by 8 per cent., vandalism and criminal damage by 9 per cent., burglaries by 10 per cent. and sexual offences by 17 per cent.
In the first six months of this year, there was one crime of violence against the person every four minutes, one act of criminal damage every 50 seconds, one burglary every 33 seconds, one theft every 15 seconds and one crime of some kind every eight seconds. What will this Bill, this alleged centrepiece in the fight against crime, do about that record crime wave? The answer is, next to nothing. The Bill is not so much about preventing or fighting crime as about what is to be done with alleged criminals when they have been caught, and what is to be done about apprehended criminals when they have been convicted. The plan is to send more and more to prison. But the Home Secretary's own statistics show that 58 per cent. of convicted criminals imprisoned with a sentence of three months or more are back inside prison within two years, and that 69 per cent. of young offenders taken into custody become recidivists and go back into custody.
If this long, complex and largely irrelevant Bill is the best that the Government can do, there is no hope under the Conservatives of any progress being made against the crime wave. Under this Prime Minister, communities have been robbed of the resources that they need to prevent crime. Millions of people are forced by this Government to live without hope or belief in the future. Our nation has become a family divided against itself. In those circumstances, we can expect only an inexorable rise in crime of every kind.
To check and reverse that crime wave, we need to bring the British people together as partners against crime and fear. For that partnership we need not a new Bill but a new Government—a Labour Government who will provide the policies to unite the nation against crime.

Sir Ian Percival: What a miserable, sour speech that was! I do not complain about some of the criticisms that have been made, and I might even share one or two of them, but the Bill provides us with an opportunity to make constructive contributions. If the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) reads the report of his speech, he may find that it contained little that was constructive.
Of course the Bill is not perfect and is not, in itself, a comprehensive scheme for fighting crime. Who could be so silly as to think that a Bill would be? The Bill is part of the Government's strategy, and embraces those parts of the strategy that require legislation. It is fatuous to look at it in isolation. When the Bill is seen in that context, one is staggered by the vast amount that is in it. Many important subjects and technical matters are covered. I shall mention only a few of them. I think that there is a danger, on Second Reading, of falling into the error of looking at each part of the Bill while failing to see the whole Bill in context.
I deal first with clause 2. I, too, welcome the fact that the Government are implementing much of the Roskill report, just as I welcome the fact that they are not implementing the recommendation on juries. It is much to the Government's credit that they have recognised that juries are perfectly able to understand most fraud cases if those cases are properly presented. Of necessity, clause 2 seems to make quite substantial inroads into the right to silence. At this stage, I do not wish to argue the importance of the right to silence, but those inroads should be spelt out so that we all know what we are doing when considering that clause.
In my thinking on clauses 14 to 20, I come close to the right hon. Member for Gorton. After all, credit must be given where credit is due. I hope that there will be the closest possible consultation with the practising bar before the final form of the hearsay provisions is decided. Barristers are practitioners and it is they who can say how the provisions would work in practice. Things may not be half as easy as they seem. Consequently, my plea is for the closest consultation possible with the practitioners. However, that is a matter to be discussed in Committee.
My next remarks touch on clause 29. As a former Law Officer, I say with some feeling that the Government should reconsider the matter. They should think of the extra burden being placed on an already heavily overburdened member of the Government. Whenever anyone complains that a sentence is too lenient, the complaint will be sent to the Attorney-General, who will have to look at it and send for the facts. When he has the facts, he will usually find that the sentence was appropriate, and so he will not refer it. The Member of Parliament involved will then say that the Attorney-General has let down the public once again, and so on. It is a terrible cross to ask the Attorney-General to bear in addition to all his other problems.
The Government should also ask themselves whether that provision is necessary. I do not believe that the Lord Chief Justice would find it difficult to give guidance if he really thought it necessary. One does not need to have an over-lenient sentence to make him do that, but merely an appeal against a proper sentence. It is not, I am sure, beyond the wit of the Lord Chief Justice to say, "Let me have a look at what is coming up in the list. Oh yes, I'll

take that one." That provides us with the perfect way of going about things as then all that business of whether to involve the Judicial Studies Board goes by the board. The Lord Chief Justice can say in public just what he wants to say to the public and the judges. I hope that the Government will reconsider that point.
Clause 83 does away with the right of peremptory challenge. I disagree slightly with everything that has been said so far. It is wrong to say that there is no evidence of abuse, though it depends on what one means by evidence. It would seem that on occasion that right has been used for purposes for which it was not designed, and that has not increased public confidence in the system. But just because there may be examples of abuse, it is easy to forget that the right of challenge is also put to good use.
Recently, I went to a seminar and at lunchtime I told one of the judges that I had concluded that we should do away with the right of peremptory challenge. He then put a point that I had never thought of. He said that in the last case in which he had appeared as an advocate he had used the challenge because he thought that his client was innocent, so he wanted a sensible jury that would understand what was going on. He wanted not to get rid of the gentleman in the blue suit and white shirt but to put him on the jury. Consequently we should not allow ourselves to be carried away just because there may have been some abuse.
I wish to raise one point of detail that is not covered in the Bill. It relates to sentencing. At that seminar, the view was universally expressed that it would be helpful to those who had the terribly difficult task of sentencing if they had discretion to suspend youth custody orders in whole or in part. I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team to consider introducing such a discretion.
As I have said, I think that there is danger of taking such a Bill clause by clause and failing to consider the entire Bill in the context of the overall problem that it is designed to overcome or diminish. We must ask what contribution the Bill will make to the fulfilment by the Government of their responsibility to preserve law and order and to their overall strategy to fulfil that and their responsibilities. These responsibilities are to prevent crime, not least by deterrence, to catch those who have not been prevented or deterred, to obtain the conviction of those who have been caught and to provide those who have the extremely difficult task of deciding what sentence to impose with an armoury of options that will enable them to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. I know that there are other factors that must be taken into account in sentencing, but the ones to which I have drawn attention are the principal criteria. It bears repeating that when it comes to sentencing the court must be able to punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
The Bill must be tested against those requirements and against the root causes of crime, especially the causes of the crimes that are increasing in number. It seems that the right hon. Member for Gorton found it easy to pick out figures that show where crimes have been rising, but his comments would have merited more consideration if he had tried to relate the figures to the causes.
The House should remind itself that creeping over the world is a wave of evil that the Lord Chief Justice recently found it necessary to describe as something that might overwhelm us and other civilisations. I shall mention two examples. First, there is the Hindawi case, which included three new features which probably have already been


forgotten by many. One of those features is the hideousness of the crime which he tried to commit. It was not a matter of placing a bomb in a position where it might have killed one or two people. If the act had succeeded, it would necessarily have killed up to 400 people who had nothing to do with the dispute that caused Hindawi to be hired. To that must be added the way in which he intended to commit the crime, and the fact that he did everything in his power to effect the crime. That all adds up to a new evil and hideousness. We have all heard of hideous crimes before, but the Hindawi case provided a new dimension.
There is another new dimension to the Hindawi case, and it demonstrates to us something we have been reading about in books, but until the Hindawi case it had never come close to us. The case demonstrated that there are international gangs of villains who are ready to commit mass murder for money. Hindawi was not an idealist or a Moslem fundamentalist; the man did it for money.
Thirdly, the Hindawi case brought us face to face with another dimension. Whether we like it or not, we have on our hands and in our prison system for a minumum of 30 years, even with full remission, a member of a gang which boasts that it does not allow its members to rot in other people's prisons. At the moment that Hindawi was arrested, he wrote a letter suggesting ways in which he might be removed from custody.
Another area of evil is the activities of the major drug barons. If a man puts £1 million-worth of drugs on to the market knowing that that will necessarily result in the degradation and then the death of an unknown number of people, mostly young, and does so purely for money, he is indulging in a degree of evil that to me beggars description. We must ask ourselves whether there is any sentence or punishment, if punishment is still an element, which bears any relationship to either of those crimes other than that that person so convicted should forfeit his or her own life.
I do not propose to develop that argument. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has suggested that the Bill is a suitable vehicle for debating capital punishment but I do not agree with him. I think that it is a separate subject. The other matters that are dealt with in the Bill are so important that we should not be diverted from them by discussing the death penalty. Capital punishment is of such importance that it should be discussed as a separate issue. As I have said, I shall not develop it here.
There is a lower level of evil, but a real one, that we must have in mind when we are considering making improvements to our system of criminal justice. We must consider the offences that are rising in number and causing the most problems for the police. These are the crimes to which we should direct our attention when dealing with Bills such as the one that is before us. My first four headings are sex, drugs, civil order and international gangs. If we did not have the civil disorder that we have and the danger from international gangs that led us to have half of the police forces of three counties on duty at Bournemouth when we exercised the elementary right of a democracy of meeting to talk, just think of the use to which those police man hours could have been put in protecting the public in their ordinary daily rounds.
Sex and drugs do and must figure repeatedly in any discussion of crime. That is both because sex and drug offences are growing in number and because of their spin-offs.

Mr. Alec Carlile: And alcohol.

Sir Ian Percival: That is not nearly in the same category. Whether that be so or not, I shall not be diverted from issues which I can clearly establish at least to my satisfaction, where I can establish a danger and I can see some of the answers to it.
There has been an increase in sex and drug offences and many of the increases in other crimes have a relationship to that. How many of the muggings that are carried out by young people are committed by those who find themselves in the hands of drug pushers? These young people may well mug somebody to obtain the money to buy the next filthy shot. How many of the so-called opportunist housebreakings are committed for the same reason? No one can answer that question, but everyone knows that it is a substantial number. There is also the element of corruption. It is no accident that the number of convictions for corruption has risen as well. These are areas of crime that have corrupted society in every way.
Who is responsible for these developments? First, we must identify the cause and, secondly, those who are responsible, for we must get at those who have responsibility. It is clear that there are all too many men and women who cold-bloodedly exploit sex, drugs and pornography for money. All three elements are related directly to one another. I do not believe that anyone who has seen even the minimum of the salacious filth that is available in magazines and videos, and even brought into our homes in television programmes, could doubt for a moment that there is a clear link between pornography and the increase in sexual crime. The people who exploit sex, drugs and pornography and cause so much misery for the young—it is young people who suffer the most—must be ruthlessly pursued and destroyed.
Then there are others who exploit all those things as part of their crusade—to them it is a crusade—to destabilise society by destroying the capitalist system. As long as we identify them and point out to the public what they are up to, I think that their influence can be kept to a minimum.
Another much wider and more important factor is the lack of moral values in so many people. If the House runs true to form, it will not be long before somebody gets up and sneers at the fact that I have had the temerity to refer to moral values. I shall no doubt be accused of preaching or moralising, which is supposedly a nasty thing to do. So let me say this. I know full well that there are very few men and women who are good enough and strong enough to live all their lives strictly according to what they may have been taught to be the normal standard. To put it another way, if I am ever fortunate enough to be invited to the saints and sinners dinner I hope that there will be enough red carnations to go round.
But I know equally well that it is a good thing to have standards and to try to live up to them; and I know equally well that there is no sadder sight—every lawyer in the Chamber will support me—than young people in the dock who have no sense of right or wrong, good or bad, and the depths to which that lack of knowledge has brought them. That is no criticism of the young. How can


they know those things if nobody tells them? It is a terrible indictment of all those who have failed them. It is an indictment of those close to them who have failed to give them any values, of those who should have led them by example but have set such a dreadful example, of those who have thrown filth and deviation at them, not least some of those who were so anxious to prevent the House from passing the Obscene Publications (Protection of Children, etc.) (Amendment) Bill presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). They sought to justify their actions in the name of art or, just as spuriously, in the name of freedom. That would be laughable if it were not so serious.

Mr. Tom Cox: I am following closely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying and I agree with him. I am sure that he would readily accept that many hon. Members are very interested in moral standards. Will he link his comments to the repugnance felt by many people about certain newspapers which go out of their way to pay large sums of money for stories? There have been examples of two brutal cases. One was of someone who murdered members of his family and the other was of someone who, sadly, raped women. The newspapers were prepared to pay large sums for the girl friends of those individuals to tell their stories. Is that not equally repugnant and a lowering of our moral standards?re

Sir Ian Percival: Of course. I am glad that I gave way because I acknowledge that many hon. Members have placed great value on standards. I should not like what I have said to be otherwise interpreted. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do that for far too long in the House moral values have been sneered at by some of our colleagues. I am glad that he is happy to stand up and be counted. I am glad that he said what he did. I accept that some of the newspapers bear a heavy burden in that respect. The fact that I have not mentioned them should not in any way mean that I underestimate the importance of that. I am merely trying quickly to catalogue some of the guilty.
To continue that, the lack of moral values, too, is an indictment of the loony fringe of some local councils encouraging promiscuity and homosexuality despite the misery, and now the dangers, to which they are known to lead.
Those in public life and we in the House have a strong duty. Those who have preached in the House to the rest of us and the nation for so many years that it is old-fashioned to have standards, that the permissive society is the civilised society—I have had to listen to that kind of talk and preaching so often—and that in sexual matters "anything goes" have a great deal for which to answer. As long as those people and any others who have contributed to the lack of moral values continue to preach that sort of attitude, and until they start giving the young the assistance which they say they want to give them by helping them to have some standards by which to try to live, we will have to run very fast even to remain on the same spot.
All that we are doing is merely palliative. I am sure that the Government will continue to set a lead in bringing home to all the value of standards. I believe with all my heart that apart from the small number who have unhappily had their lives ruined beyond repair, those of us who believe in what I am saying will find a ready response

from the young, many of whom are longing to have some help from those to whom they look for guidance, even if they do not want to come straight out and ask for it.
I remember when I used to have to fix a time for my daughter to come in. There was always grumbling if I said she should be in by, say, midnight. A few years later she said that it was a marvellous protection to be able to say, "The old devil says I have to be in by 12 and if I am not I will not be able to go out again." It is not nearly as complicated as some people make it. There are ways in which we should be able to give guidance to the young. Unless and until we do, as I have said, we will have to run very fast to stay on the same spot. Meanwhile, we must do what we can to improve the situation. I believe that the Bill, as part of the Government's whole strategy, will make a real contribution and for that reason I welcome it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: At the outset of the speech in which he commended the Bill to the House, the Home Secretary emphasised the sheer volume and quantity of amendment and reform of the criminal law and the law of administration of criminal justice which has taken place in the past few years. Listening to his Second Reading speech, too, one was bound to say to oneself that here were five or six Second Reading speeches of five or six Bills, each deserving separate consideration and philosophic attention in its own right. When that happens, especially when it happens in association with a public sense of abhorrence for crimes that are increasing in prevalence—the sort of abhorrence to which the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) has given moving expression—there is more than usual danger of standards being cast aside, of principles of justice being neglected and of natural justice being treated as of no account in the anxiety to get new provisions on to the statute book. When that occurs, a responsibility rests upon every hon. Member whether or not he is a lawyer or one who concerns himself specifically with criminal law.
I should like to refer especially and briefly to part IV of the Bill, because it illustrates what I have in mind and enables me to palliate even if I cannot make good a failing on my own part. In the context of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, a revolutionary innovation was made in the criminal law through the introduction of confiscation. When it was introduced, even those who were anxious and disposed to object nevertheless argued that the offence in question was so dangerous, so abhorrent, such a threat to society that it justified the exceptional innovation. I know that there were others besides myself who were opposed to the principle but let it go by on the basis that it would not be drawn into precedent or extended beyond the context which was originally thought to justify it.
Part IV of the Bill reveals exactly the same kind of proposal as first appeared in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, a lesson—if one were needed—in the rapidity with which something introduced as exceptional to deal with a quite specific and exceptional danger can become a pattern to be virtually carbon copied whenever there is a new phase of criminal legislation.
In effect, part IV of the Bill extends confiscation not merely beyond the original context in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 but to any crime whatsoever that can be associated with pecuniary gain. The Bill extends it to


the offences triable in magistrates courts which are set out under schedule 3; but the terms of that schedule have no relevance, because the Minister is given power by order subject only to negative procedure to add to those listed any other offence triable in magistrates courts. The Bill extends confiscation to offences triable in a Crown court upon indictment virtually without any limitation other than that implicit in the nature of confiscation itself. Thus, there is in the Bill what might be described as the explosion of a tentative innovation which Parliament had accepted in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 in the previous Session.
In public, outside this House, I drew attention last year to the dangerous nature of what had happened and expressed the belief that it would not be long before the precedent was repeated. However, I failed to record dissent on the Floor of this House or, if it had been possible, in the Lobby. One of the irrecoverables of life is the dissent that one did not express, the vote that one failed to cast. At any rate, by this brief speech this evening, I am endeavouring to expiate what I left undone last Session.

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman knows the respect with which I always treat his contributions. That is what moves me to ask him this question. What conceivable objection can there be to the proposal in the Bill that, once it is known that a convicted criminal has benefited to the tune of more than £10,000 from crime—and that established in the indictment—that person should then be rendered liable to lose property to the value of that sum so that he should not otherwise benefit from crime? I cannot understand how that is objectionable.

Mr. Powell: I was about to refer to what seemed to me the major flaws in the innovation and its major inconsistencies with what people would regard as the principles of our criminal justice.
In the first place, the innovation superimposes what is in effect an additional penalty—and a severe one—upon the penalties which have been prescribed by statute for the offences in question. We go to considerable trouble in legislating to decide what penalties would be appropriate to particular criminal offences from which profit might be drawn by those who commit them. Yet, in part IV of the Bill, we pile on top of these indiscriminately the engine of confiscation.
The second flaw associated with confiscation is that, by its very nature, it puts the burden of proof upon what in part IV would be called the defendant.

Mr. Mellor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: That is obviously a matter that needs to be examined closely in Committee. It may be possible by work in Committee to amend part IV so as to correct some of the inherent flaws. They might at least be considerably reduced, if not eliminated altogether.
The student of part IV of the Bill as it stands finds himself contemplating a situation where, in effect, the defendant is presented with a proposition and it lies with him to make the case against it. The burden of proof—in that sense of the term—is rested upon the defendant in the course of the process of confiscation.
I believe, indeed, that every part of the Bill will require the most exhaustive discussion in principle and detail in

Committee; but in this Second Reading debate I believe it right that a marker should be put down especially against part IV, which extends so widely the principle of a procedure introduced out tentatively and in a different context in the previous Session of Parliament.

Mr. Charles Irving: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and his colleagues on producing at least some measures that will go a considerable way to combating the rising concern in the community about serious crime and crimes of violence. Generally speaking, we must welcome the increased powers to deal with fraud in the light of the insider trading scandals and it is timely and appropriate to take that matter to a sensible conclusion.
The confiscation of assets of offenders convicted of highly profitable crimes gives the Bill at least the air of justice. The overhaul of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is long overdue and is to be welcomed. Public feeling is quite rightly rising very high indeed about the violence in the community. It is a scar on the face of this civilised nation that thugs, brutes and violators run free while non-violent offenders, fine defaulters and the mentally ill clutter up expensive prison beds. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have falsely promised to reduce the prison population and have so far dismally failed to do so. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have greater success than has been achieved in the past—he certainly cannot have less success.
My commendation of the Bill is, however, tempered with a deep disappointment. The Bill is essentially a ragbag of measures and an administrative housekeeping system. No attempt appears to have been made to reduce the prison population or to make room for those who terrorise their neighbours. The Government have rightly devoted great attention to the needs of the police, the courts and the prison service. They are rightly generous in their allocation of resources to the needs of those services. They have given the police and the courts great powers to deal with the problems of crime and if those powers are exercised our streets may be slightly safer, but they have failed to tackle the problems of non-violent offenders.
The Bill fails by its omission of any proposals to reduce this country's excessive use of imprisonment for non-violent people. We send more people to prison than any other major west European country and we imprison them in conditions that are nothing less than a national scandal. Fewer than one in five prisoners have committed crimes of violence, sex or robbery. Of the 92,800 sentenced offenders entering custody in 1984, only 15,000 had committed such crimes. In addition, 21,800 fine defaulters received short custodial sentences, a very costly administrative hazard.
Fifty-eight per cent. of male offenders leaving penal establishments are back before the courts within two years, and 33 per cent. have to spend most of every 24 hours in overcrowded prisons without easy access to private toilet facilities. What a shambles it is. The only word to describe such a system is "perverse". It seems designed to create and maintain criminality. Unless sanctions other than custodial sentences can be found for non-violent offenders, the Bill is bound to increase the problems because it cannot do other than increase the number of men and women in prison.
My final criticism is that the wrong people are being sent to prison. To pile more people on top of those already there is obscene. In considering the problems that will be increased we should not forget that in the past few years there have been riots in 22 prisons and the resulting damage has cost the taxpayer many millions of pounds and brought even worse problems for prison staff. We must not lose sight of the immense difficulties and dangers that prison staff carry on behalf of society.
For a nation proud of its commitment to youth, Aileen Ballantyne's article in The Guardian of 24 November makes grim reading. It states:
In all just over 11 per cent. of under 16 year olds who come before the Courts receive custodial sentences. But there is little evidence that this approach to juvenile crime is having any effect on reconviction rates. 71 per cent. of those sentenced to detention centres and 81 per cent. of those sentenced to youth custody centres re-offend within two years of release.
On the same day, The Guardian speculated that the Home Affairs Committee was about to recommend a single sentence of "treatment" for all under 18-year-olds instead of custody. The Bill should have dealt with some such measures. It is a tragedy that it has not done so and I hope that it is not too late to remedy that omission.
Many people feel that the police, the courts and the prison service are not tackling their problems. I believe that the proposal to abolish peremptory challenge of jurors will enhance that lack of confidence in our system of justice. When emotion runs high, as it did in the miners' strike and in the aftermath of the IRA bombings and the inner city riots, the law is rightly seen as the great cohesive force in our society. Anything which weakens that will produce an impossible situation when people's confidence in the courts is already wavering. It is right that on such occasions, and, indeed, on all occasions, the defendant's right to a fair and unbiased trial should be publicly demonstrated and that the defendant should be able to exercise his or her right to countermand public bias. The abolition of the right to peremptory challenge will greatly damage public confidence in the impartiality of the courts.
Unless changes are made in Committee it will be very difficult for me—a strong supporter of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the prevention of crime, with a long interest in justice and in the improvement of the prison system—to support the Bill if it came back to the House as now drafted. I hope that the Committee will remove this tinder box of injustice and change the Bill.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) has spoken with great eloquence on a number of matters that I had wished to raise in my speech. I agree with his every word and I hope that the Minister will pay real attention to that speech from a member of his own party.
The right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) spoke of the decline in moral standards in this country. I very much agree with him, as I am sure do most, if not all, Members of the House. There is a considerable need to teach the young standards to apply in their adult lives. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, that any Government who, through their economic policies, lower the material standards of any substantial sector of society, run the risk of lowering moral standards in that sector of society. There is some statistical

evidence, which all of us who have experience in the courts would support anecdotally, that that has been the case in this country. Some years ago, before I became a Member of the House, I attended a debate in which a Conservative Member quoted the Prime Minister as saying that unemployment does not in any way contribute to crime. What a misjudgement and a myth that was, and how wrong it has proved to be.
I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, too, that part of the Bill is designed to deal with a very serious decline in moral standards, not among people who are ill educated and do not know the difference between right and wrong but among those who are extremely well educated and perfectly well aware of the difference between right and wrong, but who are committing massively increasing offences of enormous fraud in high places. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that the Bill in some way makes a contribution on behalf of the Government to raising moral standards in this country, I believe that he has failed to read the Bill properly. As his hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said, the Bill is no more than a ragbag of administrative measures.

Sir Ian Percival: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that there is a link between unemployment and crime and is seeking through that to blame the Government, that is a damned insult to the unemployed. Of course a great many convicted people are unemployed. All professional and petty crooks are unemployed and have no intention of being employed, but the vast majority of generally unemployed people lead decent, honest law-abiding lives and ought to be congratulated.

Mr. Carlile: Of course the majority of unemployed people lead honest lives, but where has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been for the past few years? Does he disagree with the deputy Prime Minister, Viscount Whitelaw, who has said in terms that he accepts there is a link between unemployment and crime? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should open his eyes and look at the evidence of what is happening.
When the Home Secretary introduced this Bill he said, in effect, that it was the last piece of the Government's master plan for the criminal justice system in Britain. It was the final piece in the jigsaw, the last of a series of Bills, and no doubt the Government will seek to rely upon it at the next general election for the bogus allegation that they have made law and order their own fiefdom. Why have we had to wait until the eighth and probably the last Session of Parliament of this Prime Minister's Government for the Government's plans for the criminal justice system to be completed? If they thought that they had the answer to those problems why has it taken so long to produce them?
The Bill, therefore, is part of the overall package of measures that the Government have introduced. God knows, we have had many such measures. Some of us, including the Minister of State, suffered for 59 meetings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mellor): I attended more of them than the hon. and learned Gentleman did.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Look at the Home Secretary's attendance record.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful for the sedentary intervenion by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr.


Kaufman). The Home Secretary of the time appeared for a total of about one hour during the whole of those 59 meetings. If one looks at the collection of Bills that have been introduced over the last eight Sessions one sees that the Government have made an enfeebled attempt to address the problems. But at least the people are now in a position to judge what the Government have done because we have been told that this is the end of the Government's criminal justice scheme.
I shall not quote many examples from the avalanche of statistics which condemn the Government's criminal justice policy, but let us reflect on just a couple of the more horrifying statistics. Since 1979 the number of remand prisoners, unconvicted people, has doubled from 4,000 to 8,000 in round figures. Those people are sometimes held in fearful conditions, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham has described. A few days ago an in-depth investigation by The Independent revealed that many are held in prisons pervaded by the smell of urine and faeces. Over that same period from 1979 the waiting time between charge and trial for remand prisoners has gone up by over 70 per cent. That figure is based on the Government's own statistics contained in their glossy publication called "Criminal Justice: A Working Paper" which came out yesterday.
What have the Government put forward to meet the increasing evidence produced by criminologists about the damaging effect of crime, even minor crime, upon the victim? What have they done not merely to deal with procedure in court but actually to stem the massive increase in fraud offences which are revealed daily and on an international scale in our newspapers? Very little.
Some provisions of the Bill are welcome. I welcome the establishment of a serious fraud office and much of the revision of preparatory and trial procedures for fraud cases. They are useful reforms. Simplification of the way in which documents are treated is welcome, and I accept that we have to look at the hearsay rule, though I have grave misgivings about the effect upon a defendant of some of the proposed measures. In Committee we shall have to ensure that we have the checks to go with the balances.
I welcome the provisions that will remove the agony experienced by an advocate who has to cross-examine a child in the full glare of the open court system. I also welcome the provisions that would deprive people of the proceeds of serious crime and I welcome too—though with the misgivings expressed by the right hon. Member for Gorton—the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board being put on a statutory basis. However, I fear that the Bill as it stands suffers from flaws which are so unacceptable as to be fatal.
The Bill makes no contribution whatever to the real problems of burgeoning crime that face society, crimes of violence and crimes in which weapons such as those mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) are used. The Bill fails even to start upon the process recommended by the Law Commission of codification—meaning simplification—of our criminal law: but the real weakness of the Bill is the attack that it makes upon our jury system. Obviously, the Home Secretary agrees basically with my view because he said that the right to jury trial is the central pillar of our criminal justice system.
The right hon. Member for Gorton went back to a quotation from "Blackstone". He got it in first, but I think a number of other hon. Members might have used it in the debate, as part of the proof that the jury system and the right to peremptory challenge are historically fundamental to our criminal trial process. The jury system has been under threat and has been whittled away for many years.
In 1973, under a Tory Government, the right to question jurors was restricted, and a juror's occupation was no longer made available to the defence so that an informed judgment about the juror could be made when deciding whether to challenge. In 1977, under a Labour Government, some cases were removed from juries, and under that same Labour Government the defence right to challenge jurors was reduced. In 1978, interestingly under a Labour Government, jury vetting was legitimised, and in 1984 the number of people disqualified from sitting on juries was doubled by the Juries (Disqualification) Act 1984. Now the right peremptorily to challenge jurors, so the Government say, is to be taken away.
In the White Paper the Government admit that the peremptory challenge can be useful as a substitute for challenge for cause. Challenge for cause means that reasons have to be given in open court. Peremptory challenge can save time, embarrassment and untold complications.
As a practitioner with some experience I foresee terrible arguments in the courts and a huge corpus of case law building up as to whether defence counsel is entitled to challenge jurors because they are black people, women, white people, men, working people, accountants, you name it, on the jury. The peremptory challenge system, against which there is no evidence of misuse in modern times, is a useful shorthand way of avoiding the embarrassment and difficulties which the courts will face if the only challenge by the defence is to be challenge for cause.
As a previous speaker has said, the Government are not even-handed about this. They have destroyed the right of peremptory challenge for the defence but not for the prosecution. Oh yes, we are assured that prosecutors will be given non-statutory guidelines, but they will still have the right of stand by—peremptory challenge for the prosecution—and vetted juries, a system in which the dice are loaded in favour of the prosecution and against the defence. That system will offend our traditions and, as a lawyer, it will offend my instincts and, I think, the instincts of many others in the House. It will lead to injustice and further unfair criticisms of the jury system.
There has been sniping at the way the jury was challenged in the Cyprus spy trial, but nobody, as far as I know, has had the courage to go outside this House and stand up and say that distinguished leading counsel in that case misused their right on behalf of defendants to challenge the jury. It has been said in this House but not outside. It may be that in the case of multiple defendants there are too many challenges, although I think that is an inconvenience we can put up with in order to retain our fair jury system. In any event, I cannot imagine that it would over-tax the Government and their officials to produce a simple, sliding scale system which would keep the total number of challenges down to what we would all regard as a reasonable maximum.
The very right to trial by jury deserves some attention. The Home Secretary said how important it is that that central pillar of our system, the jury trial, should be


available for those charged with serious offences. I agree. However, people who are charged with assault and battery are no longer to have the right of jury trials. That means that a police officer charged with common assault is no longer to have the right of jury trial. I am aware that the great majority of police officers who are charged with assault elect trial by jury because they want to be tried by a cross-section of the non-criminal population at large. It is right that they should retain their right to trial by jury, for if they are convicted they will lose their livelihoods, pension rights, self-esteem and the esteem of others and it is quite likely that they will have to suffer—even for a short period—the deep humiliation of a very unpleasant period of imprisonment.
What about the social worker, or the house-parent of a children's home who is charged with common assault? Is it conceivably right that such a person should be deprived of the right to elect trial by jury when their whole livelihoods and future career prospects could be wrecked by a conviction of what might seem on the face of it a minor offence, but in reality is not?
I believe that a charge of committing damage which causes just under £2,000 of damage is not a trivial offence either. It is an offence for which sentences of imprisonment are rightly passed. I believe that where people's liberty is at issue—for substantial periods—they should have the right to jury trial for what are serious offences. The Bill represents a real challenge to our jury system and therefore a challenge to us in this House, upon whom the population rely to maintain their traditional liberties. As yet, these liberties are not contained in any Bill of rights and therefore these liberties must be maintained by the determination of all hon. Members of this honourable House. I hope we shall see more Conservative Members speaking out both here and in Committee in defence of the retention of the jury system.
The Bill will also damage community relations. It will deprive the immigrant overstayer of the right of appeal within the immigration appeal system. It will introduce a new notion of the continuing offence, which will even include the absurd proposition that the immigrant will be guilty of an offence while awaiting trial. That will damage relations between the police, immigrant communities and the authorities as a whole. Surely that cannot be a sensible part of the Government's masterplan for the criminal justice system.
Not only is it wholly unacceptable that the proposed revision of prison discipline is not included in this Bill but, even when the Government finally get round to putting something before the House, they apparently will not follow the recommendations of the Prior committee. The Government, so it would appear, have decided it is worth ignoring the careful deliberations of a committee which devised an excellent system of fair prison disciplinary judgment. The Government have done so to save what appears to be no more than £300,000.
We in this country have always been fearless in providing a safe haven for those who elsewhere face charges for what could be described as political offences. Such charges have been made under systems of justice which are unacceptable to us. We have been able to give sanctuary to many even though we have not always agreed with them. For example, not everyone agreed with everything Garibaldi said but this country was prepared to offer him sanctuary, and protection from extradition.
We must ensure that this country remains a country in which fairness, justice, and fearlessness against foreign Governments who are less just than we, are maintained, so that we can remain proud of our system.
There are many other issues in the Bill which must be considered in Committee and I give the Minister and the Home Secretary due notice that, particularly on proposals against the jury system, many of us will be prepared to argue vehemently and long for the retention of the right of jury trial.
If one can be forgiven for using rugby analogy, the Home Secretary, by introducing this Bill, has made a flying tackle which has left him writhing in the mud while the criminal justice system has run away. Crime is ever on the increase, but in this Bill nothing of substance has been offered to allay the fears of the people.

Sir John Farr: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will forgive me if I did not closely follow his argument. I was gripped not only by what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, but by the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who speaks on these matters with knowledge. He produced some telling statistics. He said that about 58 per cent. of criminals return to prison. He complained about our present prison system and said how inadequate and unsatisfactory it is. Hon. Members must agree that that is a shocking statistic. I am lucky to have in my constituency one of the top security prisons, at Gartree. That prison is regarded as a good one. There is no doubt that many improvements could be made.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to examine a report that was sent to him about a month ago from my constituency. It concerns a serving police officer from Market Harborough, who went to the United States on a Winston Churchill Foundation award. For about three months, he studied an American experiment. The worst criminals were generally not those of mature age, but were in their late teens or early 20s. In America, the worst persistent criminals are taken to camps where they live rough for a month and have to depend upon each other. This is an innovation. The police officer's wife, who is a serving policewoman, went with him. A report on what they found lies on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said that it is not good enough to be satisfied with over 50 per cent. recidivism. Let us try something different. Let us try to put American expertise into the treatment of persistent young—male and female—offenders in Britain. We may lose, but it is worth a try.
My first criticism of the Bill relates to the fact that certain firearm offences are likely to attract terms of life imprisonment. A range of 40 to 50 firearm offences are specified in the Firearms Act 1968. The worst two types have been selected for this deterrent. Although I support the Bill, I am not convinced that my right hon. Friend's approach will be successful. What will a determined, armed criminal say and do when he is caught? He will know perfectly well that, if he lands inside, he will face life imprisonment. This measure will be an incentive to an


armed criminal to use his gun to resist arrest and to escape rather than to leave the weapon in his pocket to reassure him and never think of using it.
If we pass these two clauses strengthening the penalties of the Firearms Act 1968 to provide for life imprisonment, we shall put at greater risk the lives of police officers and all those engaged in protecting property.
This may or may not be an election year—I do not think it is, or will be in 1987. That is beside the point. It always sounds good to say, "We have done something, we have got life imprisonment for armed criminals." What does it amount to when we examine the 40 or 50 offences in the Firearms Act 1968? Some offences are serious, such as shortening a shotgun. Nobody who shortens a shotgun is of good intent. There is a range of grave offences. The 1968 Act stipulates penalties of up to 12 years, accompanied by a fine. Some are substantial terms of imprisonment.
What matters is not the range of available penalties, but how the judiciary and the magistracy will apply them. It frightened me to look at the range of maximum penalties in the 1968 Act—I shut the book quickly. We must examine how they have been utilised by the different benches—by the magistrates and by the higher courts. They have not even paid lip service to the range of deterrents that Parliament has laid down. As I know a little about this subject, I know that what my right hon. Friend intends to do is a bit of eyewash.
The transfer of some matters from a higher court to a magistrates court may or may not be a good idea. I expect that I am not alone in having sent letters to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the last month or two. Magistrates in my constituency, the chairman of the juvenile court in Leicester, the clerk to the magistrates of the Market Harborough bench, and many other magistrates have written to me. They are worried about steps that have been taken by the Government to withdraw the police presence from magistrates courts. I sent these letters to the Home Secretary. I know that he has a lot on his plate, and I admire the way in which he gets on with what he does.
Nevertheless, in Leicestershire, it is safe to say that the magistrates are uneasy at the prospect—due to legislation that we have passed and which came into effect on 1 October this year—of magistrates courts sitting without a police presence. Very often, the police do not do anything, but it is the opinion of the magistrates that they provide a certain reassurance. They reassure timid witnesses. They could be there to give evidence in future prosecutions.
My right hon. Friend asks the House to approve the transfer of four more offences from the higher courts to the magistrates courts, including serious offences relating to assault and battery. Surely these matters cannot be tried at magistrates' court level without a prominent police presence. The chief constable in the county of Leicester has been approached. He has agreed, on a trial basis, until funds are found from somewhere, or the money is authorised by the Home Office, to have a police court presence for a period of six months, from 1 October 1986.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to expect us to accept these further four responsibilities being handed

down from higher courts to be properly dealt with by the magistrates court unless they can have the reassurance, which they request, of a permanent police presence.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It appears that under clause 121 a person who comes to this country as a resident or refugee and overstays is to be prosecuted and to have no right of appeal. I believe that that should be considered against the background of the conventions on refugees to which this country is meant to be a signatory and which give anyone who claims refugee status and overstays a right of appeal. If we take away that right of appeal, where do we lie in respect to the conventions?
I draw the Minister's attention to the report of the Special Select Committee on race relations of about two years ago in which we showed considerable concern for refugee status and the way in which the British Government seem to fly in the face of many of the Geneva conventions. As has been said, we used to be extremely proud that we were the home of the refugees. Britain, especially under this Administration, which is reluctant to give political asylum to anyone, seems to have become the one country which the genuine political refugee seeks to avoid for fear that eventually he will be thrown back to his country of origin, where often his life is in danger.
I shall not travel further down that line but will return to the main substance of the Bill. Clause 1 will set up the serious fraud office. I welcome any measure that leads to prosecutions in some major frauds of the past few years in which people have escaped prosecution. As we have seen in recent weeks, there is certainly insider dealing. The problem must be tackled, and that requires expertise. As I have said in respect of the Crown prosecution service, if we really want a service that works, we must set it up properly, put in the resources at the beginning, obtain the best, most qualified staff and support them. Financial costs of £3 million or £4 million have been mentioned. If we are to buy the best—and we need the best in starting the service—we should at least invest wisely and properly at the beginning. We might then produce a service that carries out its task properly. I think that is the will of the House.
I should like to put in a plug for the Crown prosecution service, of which I am a fervent supporter. I do not apologise for that. Perhaps, if there were a little more investment in that service, some of the ills about which many people carp and complain would easily be overcome. With the right staffing and the right resources, I am certain that we shall produce a first-class service of which we can all be proud. The Government have failed with that service, but I hope that, with this one, they have learnt their lesson and that there will be an improvement and a service worth having. We badly need a good service. I think that there have been nine prosecutions in the past few years for insider dealing. One need not walk "the square mile" for long to know that nine prosecutions are but the tip of the iceberg. A vast morass of corrupt misdealing remains undetected. We may well in this legislation remedy that wrong.
My next point concerns juries. I must declare an interest as a practicising barrister. I have the advantage, pehaps, of having been both a solicitor and a barrister, which makes me unusal in some ways.

Mr. Keith Best: The hon. Gentleman briefs himself.

Mr. Bermingham: Indeed.
Having watched and participated in the selection of jurors for the best part of 20 years, I have begun to notice something. Since the White Paper was published in March, I have taken the opportunity to ask other barristers around the country for their views. It seems that most barristers do not challenge most of the time. That right is rarely used, but there are places where it needs to be used. The fuss and bother have grown, basically, in the press which has hit upon the exceptional cases in which the peremptory challenge is used and blown them out of proportion. But in perhaps 99 per cent. of cases, the challenge is not used.
The other day, someone said to me, "But what if you go to Bodmin or Mold Crown courts where the juries are drawn from the immediate locale, the villages?" The barristers practising in those areas often find that the defendant says to them, "I think that I know that chap." He may be a shopkeeper or someone who works on the next farm but one. Because the jury in a small Crown court is drawn from the local area, the anonymity of the cities is missing. Those who practise on the western and Welsh circuits fear that they will run into that problem. How will they challenge for cause? Do they stand up before the judge and say, "Your honour, challenge for cause. We think that we know that man."?

Mr. Mellor: Of course.

Mr. Bermingham: The Minister says, "Of course." But that argument can be turned round if one is a member of the jury. People may say, "He was not challenged. What is the relationship between the two?" The questioning against the defendant begins. The minute one starts going down the road of challenging for cause, one starts to create innumerable problems, which we do not have now.

Mr. Best: In my experience in the courts, if there is any question of there being a nexus between a member of the jury and the defendant, invariably the judge, to be absolutely safe, discharges that juror.

Mr. Bermingham: I concede that, but at present, if one feels that way, one makes the challenge and does not have to give the reason. One does not begin to explain before the rest of the jury why certain people should not be on the jury.

Mr. Mellor: I do not want to prolong this matter, but the hon. Gentleman has always interested me greatly. Having started with the appropriate admisson that the challenge is sparingly used, he gave us an example from the very courts in which he will see, if he looks at the figures, that it is rarely used. The peremptory challenge is most often used in the Central Criminal Court. Although I, as a member of the legal profession, am as gullible as any of my colleagues, I think that the idea that the peremptory challenge is used at the Old Bailey because of that does not wash.

Mr. Bermingham: If the Minister of State had listened carefully, perhaps he would have realised what I said. Perhaps he will read my statements. I said that the fear of those who practise on the Welsh and western circuits concerns removing their right to challenge. I agree with the Minister that there are cases in which the system has been misused. But, just because someone commits a crime, one does not abolish the system.
I do not want us to go down the road of the American courts in which four days are spent trying to swear in a jury, which gets around every conceivable challenge. That does no one a service. Our system limits us to three challenges. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) suggested considering a scale of collective challenges in cases involving multiple defendants. Perhaps there is some merit in that, although it needs further consideration. I ask the Minister of State and the Home Secretary to accept that there is a strong feeling in the legal profession that the removal of the peremptory challenge is not a good idea.
I hope that I am lucky enough to serve on the Committee, when we may again consider the review of sentencing. Again, we are treading a dangerous road. Despite what one may say about the Attorney-General being the one person who can decide, the reality of practical life is that the sentences about which complaints are made—for example, from Leeds and Newcastle-upon-Tyne Crown courts—result from the Crown prosecutors speaking to counsel, taking a view on the sentence and then beginning a process of referring the matter through the system to the director's office and, ultimately, to the Attorney-General. In effect, one is saying to the prosecution, "You should have an interest in the sentence passed by the court." Many of us believe that a good prosecutor stands aloof from sentencing. The prosecutor's function is to present the facts of the case to the court.

Mr. Mellor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bermingham: The Minister shakes his head in disagreement. He should take the trouble to ask those who prosecute day in and day out, as I do, what they think. Perhaps then he will be led away from the advice that he is getting from the Box, which is taking him well away from what he ought to do.

Mr. Mellor: I should not rise to the hon. Gentleman's bait because the choice is either not to listen, or to listen and constantly disagree. I am not taking issue with the proposition that the prosecution does not want to get involved in sentencing. The hon. Gentleman has a sharp mind and should address himself to the proposal before the House, which is not that prosecutors should become remotely involved but that the Attorney-General should decide—as he does at the moment on an alleged misdirection in law that leads to an acquittal—whether it is in the public interest to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal, which will consider, on an application, whether it wishes to hear it. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the prosecution. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to condemn the proposal, he should do so only on a clear understanding of what it is.

Mr. Bermingham: I say again, and with great respect to the Minister, "How wrong you read me." I am merely suggesting that the sentence will land in the hands of the Attorney-General because somebody has taken exception to it and the practice will grow. Once again, we are starting on the wrong road.
Lord Justice Lawton said in the Court of Appeal the other day that he welcomed that proposal, so that he could start reviewing sentences. We all know that the judiciary keeps its eye upon sentencing, and that has worked well in the past. I should like to see further developed the idea


of senior judges reviewing the sentences passed by recorders, assistant recorders and Crown court judges. That would provide consistent sentencing, and a series of tariff levels, and there is no harm in that.
However, that does not require us to start on the road of formal review. It was said earlier that sometimes the Lord Chief Justice plucks a case from the list of sentences coming to appeal to give that advice. We all know that that happens, and many of us welcome it because it helps towards consistency. Perhaps it could be developed.
The Bill contains many fascinating features which will no doubt be considered in great depth in Committee. I hope that many changes will be made to the Bill, because we all want to see our criminal law brought into the 21st century on time, and to see justice done. We all pursue that goal. On this occasion the Government have again made several fundamental errors.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: When the Bill gets onto the statute book, a big step will have been taken to improve our criminal legal system. There are so many improvements, changes for the better, and actions taken where they have been badly needed, that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) might have been speaking in a wholly different debate, so unnecessarily sour and irrelevant were many of his comments.
The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman's claim to be concerned about law and order is that it is both relatively new and wholly unconvincing. While his party is full of people who spend their energies attacking the police, insulting the judges and urging breaches of the law, it is hardly credible for its members to purport to be of the party of law and order. As the right hon. Gentleman's speech illustrated, their best proposals, such as neighbourhood watch schemes, have, of course, long since been Conservative party policy, and they have been proved very effective.
The Bill is a constructive successor to the many other improvements that the Government have already introduced into the legal system. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which gives sensible powers to the police and more protection for the suspect, the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 and other administrative steps to reduce delay—for example, the tape recording of interviews, which is being introduced too slowly, but which, nevertheless, is spreading—will, more than anything else, speed the process of criminal trials and improve justice.
Likewise, the answer given to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister on the setting of time limits for bringing cases to trial was impressive, but it would be far more impressive if he undertook the introduction of a scheme requiring a limit of 110 days, as we already have in Scotland. I hope that it will not be too long before his proposals are fully implemented. Other substantial improvements have been the improvement in pay, training, equipment, leadership and morale in the police that the Government have achieved, the crime prevention measures, which are expanding all the time and which have

proved so successful, the extension of the armoury of sentences available to the courts and the radical prison building programme.
The trouble with the Bill is that it is so large, long, diverse and worthy of discussion that to speak for 10 minutes on Second Reading becomes a frustrating exercise. I want to spend what is left of my time criticising those parts of the Bill that I believe are a mistake, or that will require substantial further consideration.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take it as read that I commend the major parts of the Bill and the important measures of implementing action against serious fraudsters and protecting victims. Putting the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on a statutory basis will inevitably require more resources to be made available. Crime will be reduced by sensible, helpful and responsible measures such as the attempt to end the unacceptable position whereby those who make fortunes from crime are allowed to hold on to their ill-gotten gains and enjoy them later; the extension of remedies against juvenile crime by holding parents more responsible; the strengthening of control against immigration abuse; and the sensible easing of the rules that prevent us from returning other countries' villains to their own country—in reciprocity that will enable us to get back for trial in this country our citizens whom we suspect of crime. All those measures play their part, and I support them.
My first criticism of the Bill relates to clause 83, which would abolish the defendant's right to challenge up to three potential jurors without giving a reason. In my view, that would be a big mistake.
Some hon. Members who seem to know little or nothing about the operation of our criminal trials have called for that, as have others who believe all they read in the papers, that guilty people are acquitted wholesale because defendants are tailoring the juries. That is utter nonsense. I do not know by what authority that assertion is made, but it runs contrary to the experience of those of us who practice in the criminal courts.
I wonder whether all those who speak loudest for the measure know what a peremptory challenge is. How can one tailor a jury if one is allowed to say no to only three people whom one does not like the look or? One cannot question them to discover that they will not favour one's case. They may very well be replaced by people who are even more ill-disposed towards the defendant than those who were challenged. Hon. Members who are concerned about the practice of tailoring should realise that that is far more likely to happen as a result of this measure because pressure will inevitably build up for an extension of the right to challenge jurors for cause.

Mr. Best: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that it is very unsatisfactory that the right of peremptory challenge should be on the basis only of what a juror looks like, and no other investigation? Has he considered the system in the United States which, albeit lengthy, ensures that where there is a challenge, there is challenge for a very good cause because the individual jurors are examined?

Mr. Lawrence: I am sure that the road down which the United States has progressed is specifically one that would not be attractive to this or any other Government. The spectacle in a United States court of juries being challenged for one, two or three days, to process a trial


that takes half a day or a day, is preposterous. Apart from that, it is extremely expensive and very demanding on the time of the jurymen. It may be one reason why, in some of the states in America, the number of jurymen who sit on juries is much lower than 12. Therefore, the example of the United States is particularly bad and should be held up as a dreadful warning to all of us here.
The harm to the system which might be caused by the abolition of that measure is not, I think, always realised. At present it costs very little in financial and administrative terms to operate. What matters above all else, once we are considering the interests of an accused person, as we must in our system, is that the person on trial should have confidence in the jury that tries him. If he sees that the prosecution has a right to stand by for the Crown those whom it does not want to see as jurors, how on earth can any defendant consider that the system will be other than one-sided against him?
If, on the other hand, the prosecution is unable to stand by for the Crown, how many convicted people who have not conformed with the requirements of disqualification, either because they are too stupid or because they wish to ignore them, will sit on our juries? I was told by a colleague only yesterday that in the Old Bailey, out of 52 people chosen for a jury panel, three had convictions. If the Crown had not been able to stand them by, some of the jurymen who had previous convictions would have served on juries. That is wholly undesirable.
If a black defendant cannot have at least some black jurymen if he wants them, if a woman cannot have at least some women, or if a young person cannot have at least some youngish people on the jury, how can we believe that there will be confidence in the jury system by those whose co-operation, after all, is absolutely vital for the process of a criminal trial? We could not try people if they refused to take part in the process, if they lay down on the floor of the dock, or if they made noises and had to be taken away. The whole point is that the defendant in a criminal trial should have confidence in the jury, and the abolition of the peremptory challenge will severely weaken that, because it is a safety valve. A man who has been in custody for a year might never believe that the system has not been weighted against him if he cannot at least have the right to challenge jurymen whose faces he does not like, and in a way that does not upset the jury.
And if I were a juryman, I should not like to be asked probing questions about my views, by biases, where I come from, where I live, how many children I have and all the details of my private life. There must be many defendants who will baulk at challenging someone on the jury if they feel that by doing so they will disturb the equilibrium of the jury and set up opposition to themselves, even though they have no confidence in a juryman.
It is inevitable that if the peremptory challenge goes, there will be many more challenges for cause. The judges will not be able to resist that pressure. It will strip away the privacy of jurymen, questions will take a great deal of time and trials will be considerably delayed and much more expensive. We shall slide down the United States slope.
Opposition to the abolition of that measure has been strong this evening and almost unanimous. It will become stronger as the public realise what the measure involves. The proposal will be rejected by the majority of people in the legal profession and it is they who have to operate the system. This proposal will not, I hope, endure, but if it

does, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have to manage with as much fortitude as he can muster without my support in the Lobby.
My second criticism is about clause 29. My objection is that it is an unnecessary stick for the Government to beat their own back with. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Attorney-General will come to regret the position in which they will be placed. Everyone who feels that a sentence has been less severe than he would like, which is likely to be a high proportion of victims in criminal trials, will clamour for the Attorney-General to appeal, and he will have to say no so often that the impression will get around that the Government are unfavourably disposed towards severe sentences.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister of State think that he will avoid publicity for low sentences by such a measure? There will be publicity when the low sentence is passed, when the Attorney-General says no and when the Court of Appeal says, "We would have imposed a bigger sentence but the Government have not given us the legislation to do so." The question will then be: will the Government introduce the power to impose increased sentences on people whom some members of the public or the prosecution think have been given inadequate sentences? Then one opens up a whole new can of worms. It will not be necessary for me to waste time in my short speech on developing that argument. As it is, a charade will develop in which the Court of Appeal will wish to take no part. It will not wish to sit there and to hear cases presented to it when it has to say, "If we had been the judge, and if we had heard this, that and the other, in a similar case, we would have given such and such a sentence."
The proposal is quite simply not necessary because guidelines can be, and are being, laid down on all subjects of importance—rape, child abuse, City fraud, social security fraud, drug cases and violence. The guidelines are coming out of the Court of Appeal, for the guidance of judges, to bring their sentences into more or less conformity throughout the country. That happens whenever an appeal is lodged against a sentence. The measure is unnecessary. It is an unnecessary creation of a self-imposed misery on the Government and the poor Attorney-General.
Thirdly, the trouble with clause 30 is that the people who are most at risk—the police—are against it. We should listen to them. If one gives life imprisonment for the carrying of firearms, the person who is faced with that may be tempted to say that if he is to be hanged for a sheep, he might as well be hanged for a lamb, and use the firearm to kill. The person in the front line will be the police officer. Either he will be frightened to relieve the villain of his weapon in case he shoots, or he will be bold and courageous, and run the risk of being shot. If the police officer is shot, the villain will escape arrest, and, by escaping arrest, he will avoid a life sentence. If he is caught, he will stand to gain no more than a life sentence in any event. The measure is unnecessary. If a firearm is not used but is only carried, 14 years' imprisonment is quite enough. If it is used, life imprisonment can be given for murder or attempted murder or the use of the weapon.
I have doubt rather than criticism about clause 21. I welcome the idea behind sparing children the horrors of court proceedings, but there are real procedural and technical difficulties in operating such a scheme and in a way which will not do injustice to a defendant in a


notoriously dangerous trial area. If a defendant cannot have the right to have the witness who gives evidence against him there in the presence of a jury, however miserable and upsetting such a procedure is, he may think that an injustice is being done. The psychological effect of looking at and cross-examining someone on a video screen is different from that of seeing a witness sitting or standing before one in a witness box.
I am most sympathetic to the Government's proposal, but I strongly doubt whether it will be as straightforward to operate as my right hon. Friend might think. The matter must be examined in greater detail and given more thought. I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to a most interesting article by Professor Glanville Williams in one of the daily papers. He suggested that the measure did not go far enough. However, if it went further perhaps we could introduce refinements that would make it more acceptable than this simple proposal.
With so much good in the Bill I ask my hon. Friends not to spoil it and perhaps jeopardise its chances because of the few measures which do not carry the support of those who must operate the system and will be responsible for making it work.

Mrs. Llin Golding: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) remarked on the many deficiences in the Bill. He described it as a ragbag. Indeed it is. It is a little bit of anything and not much of everything. The Bill may be part of the Government's overall strategy, as the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) said. It has much of the pre-election fever about it, but, unfortunately, it falls far short of being a deathbed repentance.
No one can deny that the criminal justice system is in need of reform, but the Bill only scratches at the surface. It does not consider, and it certainly does not present, a positive approach to many of the areas of anxiety that it purports to confront.
It is reasonable that the entire question of the use of video equipment should be given detailed consideration. It should not be presented as a half-thought-out proposal to try to allay the anxiety of the general public about young children being required to give evidence in abuse cases.
The measures in the Bill certainly fail to show any understanding of the distress caused to young children while giving evidence or of the need to protect their young lives from even greater emotional damage. Why has no thought been given to other distressed witnesses, such as old ladies in their 80s and 90s who have been robbed, beaten and raped, or young girls raped by gangs of youths? Why should they have to suffer the indignity, shame, humiliation and distress of giving evidence in open court? Surely if video link evidence is being considered for use in British courts and if we are to make use of modern technology, this important change needs to be given detailed and careful consideration.
Many people, including the Police Federation, do not think that the proposals in the Bill for a live video link for certain assault and sexual offences do much to help child witnesses. Video recordings may be the answer. They should at least have been given serious consideration before the Bill was drafted.
Many other provisions in the Bill seem to raise more problems than they solve. Will the increase to life imprisonment for carrying firearms encourage the use of firearms in the furtherance of crime? If the penalty is so great for carrying firearms, the criminal will have little to lose by using them. Will the confiscation of the assets of crime, desirable though it is, penalise those who receive the assets of crime in good faith?
The Bill misses what our people most want. They want to reduce the number of victims and they want crime to be prevented, not committed and then punished. Prevention and deterrence—that must be the cornerstone of policy. That is the cornerstone of Labour party policy. We want our young, our women, our old, and weak citizens to feel secure on the streets and in their homes. That can happen only when we have a Government who are determined to invest in tackling crime.
I welcome the setting up of the serious fraud office. It will be needed to examine the Government's last election manifesto which promised to do so much to reduce crime in Britain, but which has failed so miserably.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Who is protecting the people? Yesterday the people of Leicestershire discovered that for themselves. They had only to walk into the county hall where they saw the local Labour group objecting to the use of video cameras in the shopping centre in the middle of Leicester. That is what is meant in so many town halls throughout the country in practical terms when the Labour party talks about protecting the people. Or is this yet another activity by a local Labour party which the Shadow Cabinet will hasten to disown?
The Bill is detailed, practical and varied. Far from being a criticism, that is a strength. The Bill combines action on many different fronts. A sad experience of the criminal courts is that, during a 10-year period, different and great changes in the conditions with which they have had to cope have taken place. Therefore, far from criticising the Bill on that ground, I welcome it.
If the transfer system for offences of serious and complex fraud means that we no longer have to sit for 90 days in magistrates courts while foreign witnesses are flown to Britain to be harassed in person by defendants—as I once witnessed at first hand some years ago—the reform will certainly be worth while.
It is a long time since the days of the grand jury, but if committal proceedings are observed today it can be seen that the spirit of the grand jury is still with us. I look forward to returning to this topic on a future occasion because it will be demonstrated that the operation of the transfer system to serious and complex fraud can and should be applied to committal proceedings as a whole. I look forward at some time in the future to their complete abolition.
Part II deals with evidence. Too many of our rules of evidence in the criminal courts are far too technical and exclusionary. The proposals in part II extend the process of abolishing those rules and make the issues matters of weight. Clauses 13 and 14 see the slaughtering of more sacred cows in the area of hearsay. I am amazed that Opposition Members still want to be stuck in the 1930s with the hearsay rule in its un-reupholstered form. I welcome back an old friend—conspiracy to defraud, in


clause 12—with whom I spent many hours over the years, until he was largely banished by the ill-conceived provisions of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
The problem with over-lenient sentences is not the habitual over-lenient judge, but misjudgment. Most judges are perfectly well aware of Thomas on "The Principles of Sentencing", the Court of Appeal guidelines, the "Criminal Appeal Reports", sentencing series and all the relevant principles that are to be applied to hypothetical sets of cases. The problem arises when, through an error of judgment, a judge of otherwise sound judgment makes a mistake. If he errs against a defendant, the matter can be put right in the Court of Appeal, but if he errs against the public interest by passing an over-lenient sentence, nothing can be done. That causes widespread demoralisation among the public and, I suspect, members of the judiciary.
So far, the Government have grappled with that problem once unsuccessfully. They are to be congratulated on attempting to deal with it again. The original proposal of publishing additional volumes from the Judicial Studies Board would not have come as close to solving it as this proposal is likely to. Once this section is in operation, as I hope it will be, it too will be seen as a step in the right direction. However, further action may subsequently prove to be necessary to give the Crown a full-blooded right of appeal against sentences which are wrong in principle.
Clause 113, together with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the increase in penalties for class A drugs offences to life imprisonment, have given the courts a formidable battery of armaments with which to tackle this series of offences. It is comprehensive. The various powers in the Bill, especially those of the Customs to grant bail, give the Customs service and police drugs squads all the weapons at their disposal for which they can possibly ask.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spencer: I am pushed for time and I cannot give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I pay tribute to the work of Customs officers, especially the investigation branch. As civil servants, their rates of pay, as they will ruefully disclose, do not match those of their brothers in the drugs squads in the police units. I saw their work at first hand in the case of Dye and others recently. They are a highly skilled and professional band, especially drugs team F, led by Mr. Hewer, Mr. Houston and Mr. Avery, which is highly skilled in surveillance.
For two and a half months that team kept close surveillance on international drug traffickers, at times literally breathing down their necks and overhearing their conversations. I saw how useful another of the Government's innovations was, the tape recording of interviews.
Peremptory challenges have generated a great deal of heat and controversy. The right hon. Member for Gorton waltzed down memory lane, hand-in-hand with William Blackstone. Although that may be an engaging sight, it is not much of a solution to the problems that we in the courts must face in 1986. Much of the criticism of the reform from members of my profession is emotional and misguided. We shall not have to look for new volumes of law. If hon. Members care to look at pages 312 to 314 in

'Archbold', they will see that the matter has been hammered out in the courts since the Challenge of Jurors Act 1305.
In this area, the approach of the law should be rational, not hunched, demeaning or degrading. I will give only one example from my experience in the Dye case. Each of the six defendants exercised his right of peremptory challenge—some in full measure. About 12 or 13 jurors were removed for the defence. That would have produced a jury virtually all of whom would have been under the age of 25. On behalf of the Crown I exercised the right of stand by to get a jury of greater age range.
That exercise on my part and the part of the other counsel involved in the case is not an attractive sight. It is demeaning and degrading to the fair face of British justice for members of the bar to treat jurors rather like auctioneers at cattle markets, saying aye to some and nay to others. That is not a rational process. I would far rather have a system where somebody had to put their objections on the grounds of reason, not of hunch. I am happy to see this innovation and reform, which will have support of almost unanimous proportions in the country.
I welcome the reforms dealing with young offenders, but draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to one matter. In every county there is a need for secure accommodation for juvenile offenders. In 1984, the local authority in Leicestershire closed the only secure juvenile home and recently there have been a number of cases where magistrates have wanted to remand juvenile offenders in secure homes. Either they could not do so or they had to resort at great expense to similar homes in other areas. In many instances, young juveniles have been put into care or accommodation unsuitable to their needs and they have absconded. Most young people on the missing persons juvenile list were already in care. It is not good enough for local authorities to wash their hands of this sort of facility and leave it to everybody else simply on the grounds of political bigotry.
The reform of the criminal law is a continuing process. The Bill provides effective and varied steps once again to outflank the criminal who is always astute to sidetrack the law if he possibly can. I end, as I began, with the question, "Who will protect the public?" The Labour party has tonight suggested that we should cut the prison population by thousands, by throwing open the gaols, and that we can improve our system of criminal jurisprudence by measures such as codification. I am sure that when the day comes, and the question is posed to the British public, they will know only too well how to answer it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: A number of hon. Members have referred to the views of the Police Federation. I should put it on record that the Police Federation will, before we debate the Bill in Committee, make known its views fully and in writing to all hon. Members, clause by clause, in so far as its legislation committee arrives at conclusions. Therefore, at this stage I recommend to hon. Members that they do not take in vain the federation's views, except in so far as I shall make one or two of them clear.
I warmly welcome the Bill, although it is a kaleidoscope and some parts are better than others. I certainly welcome the reforms proposed in the jury system. I am glad that the fastest growing group of our fellow citizens, those between the ages of 65 and 70, are to be allowed to serve on juries.
Their judgment and maturity will be of great benefit. I welcome what is to be done about extradition. I would prefer that the prosecution had a straight right of appeal against excessively lenient sentences, but I recognise the Government's wisdom in understanding that the House would not accept that. What we have on offer is perhaps better than nothing, although I appreciate that that view does not command a great deal of support within the House.
I welcome the abolition of the power of magistrates to remand people to be held in police cells for up to four days. That is good news for the police service. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have recognised the force of some of the criticisms that I, among others, made on behalf of the police service to various parts of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, so that this Bill provides some modest but useful amendments in respect of search of persons in police detention, for example, on the way to the police station.
There is then the thorny matter of the penalties for firearm offences. I am aware of the view of both the Association of County Councils and, at an early stage, of the Police Federation, that the removal of any difference between the penalty that is available for carrying a firearm or for using it would be a mistake. I am bound to say that, subject to further examination, I myself find it almost impossible to oppose the proposed increase in sentences for the carrying of firearms. I shall be surprised if, at the end of the day, the police service goes on record as being against a more severe penalty than the one that at present applies to the carriage of firearms.
The Bill does not do one thing that I wish that it did. It does not crack down on the misuse of public funds by certain local authorities in attacking the police. In particular, I refer to what is known as the GLC in exile. Eleven out of 12 Labour authorities in London still work together at Middlesex house, employing a substantial number of people, largely to attack the police. I put on record one example to which I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will address his mind.
The former GLC granted one Herbert Windsor £12,000 to start something called the Police Accountability for Community Enlightenment Group. He set this up and was given by the GLC £145,000 of ratepayers' money to attack the police. Not long ago, this gentleman was taken to court. He had not only been paid a substantial wage, but had raked off about £1,000 a month through false expenses claims and paying wages to bogus staff. He was gaoled for 18 months after being found guilty on six charges involving theft, false accounting and deception. The GLC should never have set up such a body with public funds to attack the police. I wish that the Bill, among other things, had taken some steps to stop this.
I come now to what is for me the major flaw in the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister will understand to what I refer—to subsections (2)(b) and (7) of clause 74. The effect of this clause, if it were to be passed, would be to remove police officers and a large number of others involved in law enforcement, such as prison officers, special policemen and bailiffs from the right of obtaining compensation when they are severely injured or killed in cases where it can be shown that the injury, though it arises from their law enforcement duties, is not strictly a criminal matter.
I give just three illustrations. First, I am sorry to say that this morning in Bristol a young woman police officer was killed while driving her police car. Information had been given to her that a suspect vehicle was in the vicinity. She and another officer in the car identified the wanted vehicle and immediately gave chase. Her car went out of control, she was killed and her brother officer was seriously injured, although I understand that he is likely to live. If the Bill were to pass as it stands, the relatives of that young woman police officer would no longer be eligible for compensation, because at the time of her death she was not the victim of a criminal assault. That is wrong.
The second example is that of the police officer, Mr. Taylor, who died the other day in Stoke-on-Trent. He was called to the scene of a break-in, where three housebreakers were apprehended. There was a struggle on the landing, and the policeman fell through the glass wall along with one of the housebreakers. The police officer was beneath the housebreaker. Probably that is why the suspected offender lived and the police officer died.
Because charges may yet be preferred in this case, I want to be careful in what I say, but if the officer was pushed in the course of the melee in such a fashion that he fell through the window and it could be regarded as an assault upon him and a criminal injury, then under the Bill, his dependents would still be entitled to claim compensation. However, if it were to be judged that his falling through the window were purely accidental, then that dead officer's dependents would no longer be able to claim compensation. That is totally wrong.
My third example is hypothetical. Let us suppose that a mugger, a rapist or even a terrorist were to be apprehended by a police officer, and he called on an hon. Member or another member of the public for assistance and the two together gave chase. Let us also suppose that as they were running over a roof top, a field or a street, both of the persons pursing the offender were to fall and injure themselves. The member of the public might have a minor injury and break his wrist. The police officer might break his back. If the Bill were to be passed, the member of the public would be eligible—and rightly so—for compensation, but the police officer would not.
Of the nine Home Secretaries with whom I have worked over the years—I say this, I hope, sparing his blushes—my right hon. Friend is the most sensible and sensitive of the lot. He has told me that he understands the police anxieties about this. Very fairly this afternoon, he said that he will meet the police to see whether it is possible to arrive at an understanding.
My right hon. Friend will have been fortified in that intention by the words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I rarely look a gift horse in the mouth. If the Opposition are prepared to take that view for proper reasons, and not because they are trying to climb aboard what they think might be an issue that will do them a little good, then I and the Police Federation will be glad of their support. The Home Secretary is a man of wisdom and perception. I believe that in one way or another he will find a modus vivendi that will avoid discriminating against the police service in this fashion.
I conclude with a few words about the proposed amendment. During my time in the House, with the nine Home Secretaries, I have noticed that crime has continued to rise under all Governments and in all countries. It is therefore facile for the right hon. Member for Gorton to


seek to lay the problem at the door of this Government or of any other Government. It is simplism of the worst kind for him to suggest that it is all down to unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman ought to realise that the most rapid increase in crime in this country is among young males between the ages of 13 and 16. By definition, they are not unemployed. The issue is more complicated than the Opposition have been prepared to allow.
I say this, too, to the Opposition. When I look at their record when they were in government—the exodus of police officers, the underpayment of police officers, the appearance of their Ministers on the picket line, their failure to carry any legislation through this House that would have been of assistance in the fight against crime—and when I look, too, at some of their present policies—their backing, as in the case of the Greater London council, for virtually any anti-police brigade that their local authority colleagues can find to support—I have to say to them that their conversion, if it be a conversion, to pro-police attitudes is welcome but is as yet to be carried through into practical form in the town halls.
The Opposition amendment cannot be accepted. The Bill should be welcomed, but requires amendment. I look to my right hon. Friend to achieve the changes that I have suggested to him.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am glad to be following the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) because I always listen with great care to what he has to say. However, if he wishes to be taken seriously as the spokesman for the Police Federation, he must try to rise above the level of being a party political hack. If he wishes to put the case for law and order, he must be prepared to be rather less partisan. He does his own case no good by going over the top, as he has done this evening.
I wish to refer to two points that were made by the hon. Gentleman. The first relates to clause 30—the increase in the maximum sentence for possessing firearms and for firearms-related offences. I was more impressed by the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who argued that the Government were moving in the wrong direction by increasing the penalty to life imprisonment.
The case that was put very effectively by the Opposition earlier today demonstrates that we recognise that there is a law and order problem. The Home Secretary and his colleagues do not have an exclusive claim to be the only party for law and order. A case can be made for effective crime prevention measures. When the argument is advanced that civil liberties have to be protected and that one has to pay regard to democracy and accountability, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would serve his cause and that of the Police Federation better if he and the Police Federation were prepared to accept that there is genuine concern about this issue.
If we express our concern about accountability and civil liberties, that does not mean that the Opposition are anti-police; nor are millions of trade unionists; nor are the hundreds of thousands of individual members of the Labour party. Those who suffer most from crime are not the constituents of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. They are my constituents and those of other Opposition Members. We represent the inner city and the deprived and depressed industrial areas where the crime

rate is greatest and where those who are in the most danger are the old, those who are imprisoned in their homes, the very young and those who already lead impoverished lives.
The case that I want to raise has been raised by me with the Home Secretary and his hon. Friend the Minister of State on a previous occasion. I want to use it to illustrate the difference between us. The Opposition are as much concerned with crime prevention measures as they are with prosecuting, imprisoning and thereby punishing those who are convicted of having committed criminal offences.
Clause 30 deals with the penalties for criminal offences that are connected with the use of firearms. About six months ago I explained to a colleague of the Minister of State in the Home Office that there is a massive loophole in the law relating to firearms. Anybody in this country has virtually free access to unlimited supplies of shotguns and ammunition. Anyone who holds a foreign passport and goes to a sports shop or a gunsmith merely has to make a statement that he intends to export the gun that he intends to purchase within 30 days. He is then allowed to purchase a repeating shotgun, or a double-barrelled shotgun, and the ammunition to go with the gun. No record of his purchase in the sports shop or from the gunsmith is made. He does not have to go to the police station to give the serial number of the gun, or to obtain a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate; nor does he have to go to the police station and, subsequently, to Customs and Excise to demonstrate what he has done with the weapon: whether he has exported it, or sold it legally, or returned it to the shop. In other words, there is a complete absence of controls on those shotguns. I am reasonably satisfied from the case that has been put to me that that is a major source of illegal weapons in Britain.
If the Secretary of State is concerned about the rise in crime involving firearms, why on earth has he not taken action to close that loophle? When he opened the debate the right hon. Gentleman said that he was concerned to follow a programme of crime prevention and that the Bill was merely a part of the Government's overall attack on crime. Unless the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are prepared to demonstrate that they recognise that there are major problems and causes of crime to which the Government are paying no attention, he and his colleagues will not be taken seriously when they argue that they wish to stem the rising tide of crime in Britain.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I give the Bill a great welcome. It is a robust attack on major crime and it will provide a strong framework to make life so much better for the victims of crime.
My constituents will find it incomprehensible that the Labour party will seek to divide the House on the Bill. They will not understand why the Labour party will be voting against increasing sentences from 14 years to life imprisonment for carrying firearms during the commission of a crime; the confiscation of the proceeds of crime over £10,000 from criminals; and the ability to extradite terrorists and major international criminals from Britain to face justice in the countries in which the offences were committed.
Nor will my constituents understand why the Labour party will be voting against the total reorganisation of investigative and prosecution procedure in relation to fraud cases—the creation of a serious fraud office—


when they have been banging the drum about Johnson Matthey and complaining bitterly that the Conservative Government were doing nothing about that.
My constituents will not understand why the Labour party will be voting against the major improvements for dealing with victims of crime. In particular, I draw attention to the provision making the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board a statutory body and raising the limits for payment of damages. That has been criticised today, but it is a modest increase and those who deal with personal injuries will realise that the proposed level is about the level of damages that are awarded if a front tooth is knocked out.
My contituents will not understand the questions that have been raised about the proposal to protect rape victims from the moment a crime is reported—such names will not be reported in the press. They will not understand the opposition to removing the protection presently enjoyed by those on trial for offences of rape from mention in the press and exposure to the media so that the public will know their names. Nor will they understand why children who have been the victims of sexual harassment and crime of all kinds should not be allowed to give evidence by video from their homes. Those of us who have practised for years in the courts realise the major trauma that is caused to children who are asked in court to relive the indignity of the sexual assault, burning further into their minds for the future the horrible acts that have been inflicted upon them, with all the problems that they cause.
The public will not understand why the Labour party want to stop the Government from keeping in custody those people who are swallowing drugs and bringing them into Britain, so that the drugs can be extracted from their bodies, so that such filth cannot be spread about our streets, destroying the lives of our young people and generally destroying much of the fabric of our society.
It is beyond comprehension that a party that complains about the Government—

Mr. Martin Flannery: It is beyond the hon. Gentleman's comprehension.

Mr. Hind: —doing nothing about crime will divide the House. Shame on it.

Mr. Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: No, I am sorry, there is no time.
Let me deal briefly with one or two items in the Bill which concern me.
Perhaps I should tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that the party that is so concerned about crime has six out of 208 Members in the Chamber, yet it will seek to divide the House.

Mr. Ron Davies: There are six on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Hind: The Labour party has spent a lot of the evening dragging Members in to keep the debate going.
Two items in the Bill cause me great concern. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of my views on the right of peremptory challenge, as I have expressed them before. Having supported that right, I am concerned about the provisions, as there is little evidence to back up the criticisms that have been levelled. I do not think that
I have challenged more than 20 jurors while practising at the criminal bar. I challenged many of those jurors, particularly in fraud cases, because they could not read the oath on the card. If a juror cannot read the oath, he will probably be unable to read a balance sheet or to understand the complexities involved in fraud cases.
I am also concerned about the inequality in the treatment of the defence and the prosecution. The prosecution will effectively have a right of peremptory challenge in asking a juror to stand by for the Crown, but that advantage will not be enjoyed by the defence. If that ever came before the European Court of Human Rights for consideration I am sure that it would take a dim view of it.
More importantly, the provision aims to rectify an evil that occurs when there are many defendants in a case, and counsel for the defence attempts to tamper with the make-up of the jury to the advantage of the defence. There are, however, other ways of dealing with that problem apart from abolishing the right of peremptory challenge. Rules could be framed to deal with cases in which there is more than one defendant, so that such manipulation of the jury cannot take place.
The question of appeals also causes me some anxiety. I fully support what has been said about the Court of Appeal's role in providing guidelines for sentencing in criminal cases. It has done that particularly well of late, as can be shown in the guidelines for sentences given for supplying drugs and rape. In such cases, two outstanding directives have been given by the Court of Appeal. But we are being asked to support a clause that will give the relative of a murdered man, or a man killed through reckless driving, the opportunity to ask the Attorney-General to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal judges may say that in the circumstances the sentence is wholly wrong and that such and such should have happened. That would leave the relative dissatisfied. Moreover, the tabloid newspapers, in particular, might apply pressure and press for stronger provisions. Perhaps that issue should be reconsidered.
We could adopt two courses. First, we could bite the bullet about allowing the prosecution a right of appeal. We have never done that in this country, but that is effectively what we are doing. We could go the whole way, and could allow the prosecution, in cases of leniency, to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. The other option would be to leave things as they are and avoid the double jeopardy that is often given as a reason for opposing such provisions. However, we have a halfway house. That is bound to lead to pressure for the prosecution to have a right of appeal in cases of leniency. I foresee that it is something that we shall be considering within the next few years. It would not surprise me to find ourselves dealing with such a measure in the years to come.
I have expressed two criticisms of the Bill, but we have a sound piece of proposed legislation before us, which deserves to be supported, and the public will not understand why the Opposition are opposing it.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Home Secretary's speech and the speeches of the many Conservative Back Benchers who have contributed to the debate, plus the issue of the paper yesterday entitled "Criminal Justice: A Working Paper"—it is clearly a party political paper designed to help the Conservative party during the coming


election campaign—have posed an awful warning to the British people. That document, the Home Secretary's contribution and the remarks of Conservative Back Benchers are part of the Conservative party's claim of success in dealing with the problem of crime. A passage in the document states:
Much of the action described in the previous paper"—
that was issued about two years ago—
is now complete.
In other words, the Government are running a successful campaign in terms of law and order. But is it complete?
Let us consider the figures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) produced when he opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, on which no one was able to challenge him. Let us consider the overall picture of recent years. What are the Government's achievements? There is more crime than ever before and the rate of increase in the number of offences of theft, burglary and robbery is much faster than under any other recent Government, Labour or Tory. I can push the point home because I can say with confidence that the Governments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and of Harold Macmillan, as he then was, would not have tolerated these figures.
The present Government have done more to destroy law and order than any other recent Government. That is demonstrated by the crime figures, and we know that we send more people to prison than any other country in western Europe, including Turkey, which traditionally has had one of the highest prison populations in the area. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving)—I am sorry that I missed his speech because I know that he speaks well on these issues—knows full well the disaster that that implies within the prison system. We send more young people into custody than any other country in western Europe, and any other comparable country worth talking about in the western world.
Let us talk about riots. We have had riots of a nature, intensity and frequency that we have not seen for over 100 years. We would need to go back to the 1870s at the very least, and probably the 1850s or 1830s, to find anything comparable. There have been riots in the course of industrial disputes. There have been riots in the country lanes around Stonehenge. There have been riots in the inner cities and riots in the prisons. This is success? God preserve us from failure.
We have the sad sight, seven years into this Government's rule, of the police being put more and more into a paramilitary role, and more extensively than in their entire existence. The Tory party tries to treat the police as if they are its own private army, to be used and abused as it likes.
The Government make the fatal mistake of ignoring the successes that the police have. The fraud squad, which was set up by the Metropolitan police, has been successful. Of 100 completed cases, there have been 81 convictions. The Government have rightly spread the idea to other areas, but we have heard no praise of the Metropolitan police in one of the areas in which it is doing its best. Instead, the Government try to pretend that in other areas of policing there is not a problem. They say, "Support the police." They seem to be saying that the use of some magic word like abracadabra will put everything right. It will not. Unless we deal with the underlying conditions that cause the crime, the riots, the riots in our prisons, the industrial

disputes and the mayhem, the only thing one can do with the police is use them to keep the lid on. The police begin to resent that.
Yesterday, I visited Bramshill police college to chair a meeting of senior officers. There was a debate on whether the Metropolitan police were accountable. I have no doubt that a couple of year ago hardly any officer would have voted in favour of the police not being accountable. They would have voted massively in favour of saying that they were accountable. Although the wording of the motion made it clear that they were not accountable to anyone, 26 senior officers voted for that motion and 44 against. We know that some years ago both the independent Police Complaints Authority and the police accountability that the Labour party has been talking about were not popular. Now, they are beginning to become popular. We know that that was happening a year ago when we saw the first poll in the Daily Mail which showed that 50 per cent. of people in this country felt that the police were not sufficiently accountable.
All of that is ignored in this wretched Bill. It is a wretched Bill—but not because there are no good things in it because there are, and we will support them. The real issue facing the Government is that they have produced a Bill that does a few good and encouraging things, which we shall support, and few bad things, but on the whole it does nothing about crime prevention, victim support or proper policing in our society. That is the reality of the Government's achievement. They present that as a success. It will not come over that way. Documents such as "Criminal Justice: A Working Paper" will not help very much either.
The Prime Minister has talked of changing attitudes in this country, as has the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I often wonder why he does not question the fact that he is always presented in cartoons as a bovver boy or a skinhead. I can see why. The Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Chingford encourage the very dishonesty, disruption and destruction in our country that they claim to speak against, and the Home Secretary has now joined them.
The document is profoundly dishonest in its presentation. It is the first time I have seen a histogram presented in such a way that the so-called clear-up rate of crime shows an increase in the height of the graph against the neighbouring scale. In fact, if one looks at the percentage figures they show a decrease from 42 per cent. in 1978 to 35 per cent. in 1985. One does not need to be a statistician to know that that is a dishonest presentation. There is so much else that is dishonest in the presentation of the figures, such as the comparison between different years, leaving out the years that are an embarrassment to the Government because the crime rate has gone up so dramatically for theft, burglary and robbery.
The other thing said by the Home Secretary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton so effectively pointed out, is that crime increases under all Governments. Under this Government in certain areas, as I have already shown, it increases much faster and we must take into account all the other points that I have raised, such as the riots and so on.
If we have a Government who fiddle the unemployment figures, fiddle the crime figures, do an about-turn on the economy and pretend that they have not, and send a senior civil servant to Australia and tell him to economise on the truth, what sort of honesty does that show the people of


this country? What sort of presentation does that make to the people when the Conservative party claim to be the party of law and order? The Conservative party is interested in law and order only when it thinks that it can get a few cheap votes out of it, as it tried in 1979—I accept that it was largely successful—and in 1983. Conservative Members go around shouting, "We'll get tough. We'll deal with crime." They say, "Give us the powers; we will back the police."

Mr. Hind: We did.

Mr. Soley: I would not argue with the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party did all that, and it is one of the reasons why the crime figures have gone through the roof and we have had the riots and so on. That policy has failed and the hon. Gentleman knows it. That does something much more serious. There is an acute danger in this country of the police becoming demoralised. The demoralisation will enter the police force precisely because the Government have led them to believe that Government policies would lead to better law and order, and that more police officers and more money for police officers and building more prisons would somehow solve all the problems. The evidence is that that has not worked, that it has failed again.
The Government have created an atmosphere of dishonesty. They have debased the very word "honesty" in their approach to crime, law and order and policing. The Bill contains a handful of useful and important reforms, including perhaps the most important proposal to allow children to give evidence on video. However, that may be difficult to achieve in the way presented in the Bill, but that point can be considered in Committee.
The other parts of the Bill are decorative and intended for an election. The Bill launches another serious attack on the jury system by proposing to abolish peremptory challenge. If the fraud investigation group of the Metropolitan police was so profoundly successful that the Government felt it right to extend that system to the rest of the country—if it was so successful, with a clear-up rate far better than almost any other form of crime that I have referred to so far—why are the Government interfering with the jury? The serious fraud office which the Government propose to set up is welcome. I suspect that it will work. However, that makes it clear that there is no need to meddle with the jury in the way that Conservative Members suggest.
I do not wish to consider the question of peremptory challenge in too much depth because many hon. Members have already referred to it. I would be more impressed by the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) if he recognised that the right of stand-by by the Crown is to be dropped. At present the prosecution can challenge in that way and vet, but the defence cannot and he knows that.

Mr. Spencer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the right to check on juries' antecedents was set out by the Attorney-General in the previous Labour Government and details can be found in The Times of 11 July 1978?

Mr. Soley: I accept that that is true and of course we must reconsider that. I make no bones about that vetting must be re-examined. The hon. and learned Gentleman

has made a fair point. However there appear to be considerable divisions within the Government, and I welcome that, not just for party political reasons. If we can carry those Members in the Committee we might save some of the damage that the Bill might cause. I would like those Conservative Members who have expressed concern about the Government's attack on juries, to carry that concern into voting in Committee.
In the same context, in relation to the firearms issue—

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman referred to a desire to abolish and change the Attorney-General's directive of 1978. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that we should make all efforts to ensure that there are not people on juries who have long criminal records? Those are not the kind of people we want on juries.

Mr. Soley: One of the points which troubles me about Conservative Members is their complete lack of understanding about people on juries. If the hon. Gentleman wants to stop liberal-minded people getting on to juries and letting people off, the people he should want to remove are middle-class liberals. The working-class person will be more willing to reach a judgment against the defendant. There is much evidence for that. There is no evidence that the system works in the way that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) suggests.
I accept the point that has been made by several hon. Members that to remove the right of jury trial for criminal damage under £2,000, assault, and taking and driving away is unacceptable. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a powerful point about the police officer or social worker who has been assaulted. Will they be unable to go to a jury? What about those who think that assault is a serious offence? I believe that it is very serious. What about people in serious criminal damage cases involving £1,000 or even a great deal less who feel that their careers are in jeopardy? They will not be able to have a jury either. For their own sake, the Government had better drop these proposals. Indeed, I suspect that at the end of the day they will have to drop them.
I have dealt with the setting up of the serious fraud office, which we welcome. As for firearms offences, if the Government go through with their proposals despite the warnings of their own Back Benchers they will be sentencing to death the small number of police officers and people in the community who choose to face a gunman. Let there be no illusions about that. The Conservatives completely fail to understand the kind of people likely to commit offences. [Interruption.] It would be easier to be delicate with Conservative Members if they talked a little more sense. The vast majority of offenders who come before the courts and go into prison commit crimes in a relatively unpremeditated way, frequently under the influence of drink.
The group who tend to act in a premeditated way, however, can be especially dangerous. They do not think to themselves that whereas they could have coped with the old 10-year sentence they could not cope with the new 14-year sentence. They simply work out the chances of being caught. Having taken a gun with him in the first place, if such a person knows that he will get a life sentence whether he hands over the gun or simply shoots the person confronting him, he will shoot that person to increase his


chance of getting away. Until the Conservatives make some attempt to understand what is going wrong with our society they will continue to get things wrong in this way.
There is nothing in the Bill to deal with the underlying crisis in law and order. We were told by the Home Secretary in his opening comments and in the document released by the Government that all Governments have faced this problem in recent years. That is quite true, but the reason is not so miraculous as the Government make out. It may not be possible to prove any exact cause and effect relationship, but one can say with some confidence that when community and family links begin to break down, behavioural problems of every kind, from crime to mental breakdown, are likely to occur.
What has made the present Government fundamentally different from any previous Tory Government as well as from any Labour Government is that they have introduced policies which have made crime more likely. Massive public expenditure cuts lead to a reduction in the number of caretakers, park keepers, toilet attendants, and so on, who by their presence in public places deter crime, help to clear up the effects of crime and, indeed, assist the victims of crime. The Government have also cut a number of other activities designed to prevent crime such as the repair and renovation of older properties which are so easy to burgle. We can now identify the high crime areas.
If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) were still in the Chamber, by God I should have a thing or two to say about him. He does not represent the Police Federation on this—he represents the Tory party—so he is taking money under false pretences, and on this, more than on anything else, he is in danger of doing the police an acute disservice. He should be representing the police, not the Tory party, and to do that properly he should bear in mind that the main interest of the police is in the prevention of crime because their chances of getting into difficulty are thereby reduced. Yet there is no suggestion of that in these proposals. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Gentleman has returned. I will repeat what I said in a moment for the hon. Gentleman's benefit.
The Government's board and lodging allowance system has forced more and more people, especially young people, into homelessness, drug abuse and alcohol abuse when the Home Secretary's own research shows a strong link between these three factors and crime. Last night or the night before—I cannot remember which—I was passing the Riverpoint hostel in my constituency and I saw a big crowd of youngsters queueing to get in. They were desperate to get in and were drinking. In situations like that they drift from drink to drugs and get into trouble with other people. When that happens a few Conservative Members get up and protest about homosexuality and pick-ups and God knows what else. However, it is the Government who have created the circumstances which have made those problems worse.
I shall now return to what I was saying about the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I accused him of being a spokesman for the Tory party rather than for the Police Federation, and for that reason I said he was taking money under false pretences. I suggested compensation a couple of years ago, so it is not new. If the hon. Gentleman had listened some time ago he would have heard me say that one of the ways we could explore the feeling about this is by allowing police authorities to insure their officers.
If we did what the Home Secretary will not do and introduced a proper system of accountability, it would

save police officers having to go through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and that would be a good thing. We would introduce such a system. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman going on about the Police Federation suddenly developing an interest in the Labour party. [Interruption.] We have put forward these ideas without payment. He is paid for the job that he does, but I do not hold that against him. We are doing it for nothing but we will not ask for part of his salary. We do it because it is right.
I should like to put one other point to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and to a number of his hon. Friends. I have yet to hear of one Conservative council anywhere in the country agree to a crime survey. They will not do so, of course, because it would identify the victims and show what sort of policing and local authority response is needed to do something to help them. The Tory party is not interested in that because it costs a bit of money. It does not cost very much, but it would do something for the victims of crime and for crime prevention.
I was in St. Paul's in Bristol last week and saw the desperate need in that area for a crime survey, but the Conservative council will not support that idea because it is not interested. When Conservative councillors or even Conservative Members of Parliament are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, I will believe that they have something to tell us about crime prevention and victim support. The truth is that they have nothing to tell us. It is a cop-out and we all know it.
More than anything else, we need a well resourced crime prevention and victim support scheme. We need economic policies that are designed to help the most devastated area in Britain, because those are the areas where there is a high crime rate. We need crime surveys in those areas to identify the victims and decide how to help them, and we will not get that from the Government.
We need a proper independent police complaints authority. A few years ago the Conservatives and the Police Federation did not want that, but now everybody wants it, except the Tories, who are the only people left out in the cold. We want a proper system of police accountability containing all the safeguards that I and my hon. Friends have spelt out. There is a duty to enforce the law and we need minimum standards laid down by the Home Office and a strengthened police inspectorate, but none of those things is in the Bill because the Government are not interested in them.
If the Government really cared for the police they would give officers a little more training. Is it fair to put 19 and 20-year-olds on the streets of our inner cities with just about 20 weeks' basic training? For that matter, is it fair to put prison officers with about 10 weeks' basic training in prisons which at the moment are explosive? In some cases in Northern Ireland, such prison officers were looking after people on hunger strike or on a dirty protest. Is that doing our duty to the forces of law and order? No, it is not, and again the Government are running away.
The Government should have a coherent policy on the availability of weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) was right. I put to the Government the need to have a well-structured committee in the Home Office making reports on the availability of weapons—crossbows, guns, the lot—so that we could debate those reports in Select Committee and make recommendations.
Let us have a good policy on alcohol abuse rather than this Christmas fernickety bit every now and then. We know that 50 per cent. of murders are committed when the person or victim is under the influence of drink. We know that 50 per cent. of battered babies cases take place when one or both of the parents are drunk. We know that a vast number of crimes in the inner cities are committed under the influence of drink. But there is no alcohol policy. When the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) was a Minister he put up too much the price of tobacco and alcohol—industries that supply money to the Tory party—and he got the sack.
Let us have a proper policy on drugs—[Interruption.] The Minister is suddenly interested in drugs when it means headlines. Suddenly, drugs are interesting in the Daily Mail. For every death from heroin we spend about £1·3 million but for every death from alcohol we spend between £200 and £300. What a policy—yet the Government are trying to present themselves as having a policy on crime.
We can rebuild our fractured community. The British people are not more dishonest, more violent, than any other nations. The British people can do it but only if they are guaranteed the support and help of a Government who care and respond to the needs of the people, not one who care and respond every time an election is in the offing and think they can get a few quick votes by trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): What an amazing ragbag of ill-assorted prejudices and spleen we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). It was an extraordinary performance. What we have been given is a series of total misconceptions about the Bill and the criminal justice policy of the Government. We have been given a ragbag of the hon. Gentleman's opinions and prejudices about the criminal justice system that in no way amounts to a coherent strategy of a group of people who could seriously be put forward as the alternative Government at some election within the next few months or whenever it may be. I thought that the former Member for Knowsley, North, Mr. Kilroy-Silk, was the master of the all-purpose rant on these occasions but the hon. Member for Hammersmith has served a very good apprenticeship with him in that art form.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Mellor: No, I must get on. I have already given up 10 minutes.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made an extremely impressive speech, as always, in which he spoke of the many changes for the better that are made in the Bill and said that the Bill was so large, so long and diverse and of such a quality that 10 minutes was a frustratingly short period to deal with it. I think that is a far fairer introduction to the debate than anything we have heard from the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) described the Bill as an inevitable kaleidoscope in the breadth and diversity of the issues that it embraced That is inevitable when one is dealing, not

with the fantasy world of Labour politicians—increasingly desperate to find some shred of semblance or credibility to face the public—but with reality. That is a fair description of a measure designed for a criminal justice system that is a sophisticated piece of machinery that needs to be addressed by a range of sophisticated changes if any effect is to be perceived. That is why this Bill, notwithstanding its diversity, has certain broad thrusts which will commend themselves not just to the House, but to the British people.
This Bill will sharpen our attack on large-scale crime. This is achieved in a number of effective ways. First of all it is done by providing an effective mechanism, which the law has lacked for too long, to confiscate the profits of major criminals. Secondly, it addresses the general concern, mirrored on both sides of the House and certainly within the wider community, about the effectiveness of the procedures against fraud. Thirdly, it addresses one of the principal problems that face us in a world in which crime is becoming increasingly international. How do we make our extradition arrangements compatible with those of some other countries? How do we ensure that our extradition arrangements allow us to get back those criminals who go overseas?

Mr. Richard Ottaway: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I must continue; I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
The Bill's broad thrust is to assist the victims of crime by establishing a real breakthrough. For over 20 years the criminal injuries compensation scheme was purely ex gratia. Now a statutory right to compensation will be established. Courts will be required to give reasons for not making compensation orders, as a further incentive to make such orders. Child victims will be allowed to give evidence on a live video link—something which even the Labour party, in its most perverse form, could not find the bare face to argue against. That is assistance to victims.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked why more is not being done in the Bill for victims. We do not need a Bill to do what we have just done for victim support schemes. We gave them £9 million to provide full-time co-ordinators. It was only when the Government were elected that any assistance was given to victim support, yet victim support schemes began in Bristol in 1974. For five years of a Labour Government, not a penny piece of public funds was given to assist victim support.
The Labour party talks about crime prevention. What has the Labour party done to further the development of the 16,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in the country? Labour Members have acted like the local council of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), which charged £53 for granting planning permission to put up a sign saying, "Neighbourhood watch scheme." We are tackling this matter in a practical way. We do not need the powers of Parliament to allow us to get the Manpower Services Commission to put £22 million of public money and 5,000 youngsters into schemes, to put locks on old people's homes, to help them to get involved in property marking, and so on. Such provisions are not in the Bill because we can do them anyway and are doing so. The Labour party has, as always, given too little and come too late to this issue.
Those who warmly welcome and support the Bill nevertheless have some reservations. That is inevitable


with a Bill of 128 clauses and 10 schedules. History books will show that peremptory challenge has been in retreat for some centuries. It was introduced in 1509 and subsequently ratified in 1530, despite strong, passionate speeches against by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who was younger in those days! Thirty-five peremptory challlenges were reduced to 20. In 1825, that figure of 20 was ratified. In 1948, a Labour Government reduced the number of peremptory challenges to seven, and in 1977 another Labour Government reduced the number to three. Now the proposal is that peremptory challenges should be abolished altogether. I believe that that is right in principle.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) said, the contortions that lawyers have to go through to justify what is essentially an arbitrary exercise are demeaning and degrading. He said that it is like treating jurors as stock at a cattle market, and I cannot help but agree with him. I do not criticise—let me make this clear—those lawyers who make use of the existing powers. That is the law, and they are entitled to do it. Is it really an ornament to our legal system?
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) included in an early-day motion a description by a solicitor of a meeting during the Cyprus secrets trial. I gather that that description has never been challenged. The early-day motion states:
Robin Simpson said we wanted a young working-class jury. Michael Hill said he really wanted an anti-establishment jury but that we were better off to have a young middle-aged, middle-class jury. Robert Harman said there was a dichotomy of views that we will just take what we get. John Alliott said we couldn't improve on fate.
There is a philosopher for hon. Members.
Gilbert Gray said if the jury is not too well-educated and of too low an intelligence they may take more note of the judge and therefore we ought to go for people who were young, not unsmart but no women. Victor Durand said that if the jury were young they may be unpatriotic.
I do not know whether that happened. It is clear that it cannot be anything other than an entirely arbitrary and rather demeaning exercise for people to speculate in that way to justify flinging someone off a jury because he is not dressed as seems appropriate or because he has a copy of the Daily Telegraph sticking out of his pocket.
If there is good cause for a juror to be taken off a jury, a challenge for cause can be sustained. The retreat over the past 40 years in the peremptory challenge is because of the increasing recognition that it is no longer an ornament to our criminal justice system.

Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend is a barrister. Would he like to comment on the type of person who makes statements about a confidential meeting? That is totally un-professional. Would he trust anyone who has made such statements?

Mr. Jessel: But no one has denied it.

Mr. Ashby: How could other people? They were not there.

Mr. Mellor: I do not think that that point goes to the heart of my objections. We take this position on a point of principle, but the work done by the Crown prosecution service and the Director of Public Prosecutions on the use of the peremptory challenge makes it clear that it is largely a south-east, mainly Central Criminal Court, phenomenon. The rest of the country is able to get by perfectly well without using it.
Other measures have been called into question. I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) about confiscation but I think that it was misconceived. There cannot be something wrong with a provision when its exclusive aim is to remove from the criminal that which a court has found is the extent of the moneys and property he gained from criminal activities. It has never been the law of Britain that that should not be done.
Alas, the previous attempts by the House to deal with this matter have been largely unsuccessful. The criminal bankruptcy provisions in particular, unfortunately, have not been the success that they were intended to be in 1972. Anyone who doubts the need for this provision should look at the revelations in the Noye case. A man made many millions of pounds from processing the gold bullion from the Brinks-Mat robbery. There was no effective way, other than a large fine, to deal with that. There would be such a means if that case were to be tried after the Bill became law.
I have noted the attack by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), which was far more broadly based than any attack by the Labour Front Bench, on proposals to reclassify offences. He cannot have it both ways. He is a practical man. He knows that the criminal justice system is practical. He cannot complain about long waiting lists and the time we must wait before trials come on, if he does not permit measures of reclassification, which carry with them reductions in the maximum penalties. Crown court business has grown by more than 50 per cent. in recent years. Despite an increase in the number of court rooms and judges, it has not been possible to keep pace. I believe that reclassification is a sensible proposal to meet that problem. Lawyers, especially those used to appearing in the higher courts, should avoid being over-patronising about the quality of justice meted out by the magistrates who deal perfectly satisfactorily with more than 90 per cent. of criminal cases.
I note what was said about the review of lenient sentences, but there is a problem that will not go away. We know that it must be met in a constitutionally proper respect, allowing the Attorney-General to say that there is a wider public interest than just a particular sentence that is not thought appropriate. That wider public interest, if confirmed by the Court of Appeal on application to it, would enable the court to look at sentencing principles in the light of a particular case. I am sure that that will prove to be helpful. It is a principled response, which in no sense brings the prosecution into the sentencing process.
I also noted what was said about firearms offences. While I appreciate the sincerity of the view of those who think that the Bill will not help, I must say that if we mean business for those who carry firearms, we must seriously address the point about the penalties that we offer, which should stand outside what is otherwise thought normal for any other sort of offence. But there is within the proposal a flexibility that should commend it to the House. It will not be usual that someone merely carrying a firearm will get life imprisonment, but if he has a bad record and has been doing that repeatedly, life imprisonment might be the appropriate sentence.
It is clear that if someone uses that firearm, if he kills, he will certainly get a life sentence. That will be mandatory. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of


State has made it clear that those who murder in the course of theft, by using a firearm, will serve a minimum of 20 years' imprisonment. So there is a differential.
Those who say that we are in danger of removing a properly structured sentencing system must consider the case of rape. No one says that rape should not carry the maximum of a life sentence, yet the same applies. A man could say to himself, "I shall murder the victim. I am no worse off than if I merely rape her." In the real world we do not believe that people say that, but we believe that in certain circumstances the rapist deserves to be sentenced to life imprisonment, and so do those who carry firearms in pursuit of crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds properly raised the point about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. He knows that only a limited number of accidental injuries have fallen within the scheme in recent years—only those where there is an exceptional risk reasonably taken. In no sense have all accidental injuries in the course of duty been covered. That seemed to be a revelation to the right hon. Member for Gorton, who seemed puzzled when my hon. Friend made that point to him. The fact is that that proposal was made in good faith by the interdepartmental committee of officials who believed that an exceptional risk reasonably taken was a difficult justiciable point. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he listens to and hears what is said. He will meet the Police Federation shortly. Indeed, he set up the meeting before the debate. I hope very much that there will be a sensible outcome.
We are in no sense hesitant about reconsidering the proposal because it does not go to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is our commitment to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which means that there has been an increase of over 80 per cent. in real terms in the resources that are made available to it, an extra £114 million more than anything that was ever done by the Labour party—[Interruption.] There is no question of that. More people will be applying for compensation. In no sense have we ever increased the bottom limit of compensation by 300 per cent. But what we see from Opposition Members is the typical tactic of making a range of essentially spurious charges backed up by barracking when those spurious charges are answered. No amount of effort by Labour Members will overcome the sales resistance of the British public to any criminal justice scheme put forward by the Labour party, which is tainted and contaminated by some of those who are tolerated within its ranks and have positions of influence.
I am astonished that even the right hon. Member for Gorton had the bare-facedness to say that it was the Labour party's intention, on crime, to unite the nation and to bring the people together in a partnership against crime. That is what he said. Is that what is happening in Haringey, Lambeth, Brent, Liverpool or, indeed, Manchester? It is about time that we had a look at what the Labour party means by uniting the people together in a partnership against crime when it has the power to do so.
Let us have a look at Labour's file of shame. Let us have a look at the Lambeth council police committee publication. It had a cartoon of a policeman beating in the head of a citizen. It is entitled

Policeman suddenly remembering human awareness training".
As the policeman beats the citizen black and blue he says,
Oh—and have a nice day, sir!
Or there are the Labour boroughs that have combined to produce with GLC money a leaflet called,
How to make a complaint against the police".
That is an innocent enough assertion. The cartoon's caption reads:
Note the identity of the officer
It shows a citizen, lying flat out on the floor with a policeman's boot on his head and scribbling "PC 37". Will any Labour Front Bench Members repudiate those things tonight? Of course not, because it is deselection that worries most of them and those are the sort of people who have taken over the Labour party.
The taint spreads from London to Nottingham. A Labour councillor from Nottingham has become a prospective Labour parliamentary candidate. The Forest ward Labour party produced a poster for a formal picket to picket a liaison committee meeting between the police and the community. It shows a policeman with a sledgehammer in his right hand and a black youth in an armlock in his left saying,
Come on Sonny, Let's go and Consult.
Is that drawing the community together? Is that what the Labour party aspires to do on a large scale when in government?
The right hon. Member for Gorton would like to be the Home Secretary, yet his own Manchester city council produces this glossy rubbish, "Police Watch"—anti-police propaganda—at a cost of £200,000 a year to the taxpayers. It spends £200,000 on that publication, £500,000 on its European nuclear-free zone proposals, and £250,000 to back a Left-wing trendy newspaper. That makes £1 million of public money tipped down the drain by an authority which sends its representatives to Westminster to say that it is poverty and lack of public resources that cause crime on the streets of Manchester. That is the most disgraceful cant, and the Labour party should be ashamed of it.
The Labour party has belatedly become ashamed of those people. It is not ashamed of their views, but of other people learning about their views and being embarrassed in public. That is why the leader of the Labour party had to give a private wigging, not telling people to change their policies, but telling them to be quiet. That is why the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), under attack from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, came up with the astonishing assertion that the vast majority of Labour councillors were beyond reproach and that the Left-wing threat came from
fewer than 0·1 of 1 per cent." [Official Report, 17 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 340.]
There are 9,000 Labour councillors in England and Wales and 0·1 of 1 per cent. of that number is nine. Which are the nine the hon. Member for Copeland is troubled about in this context? Is it nine of the 40 Labour councillors in Lambeth? Is it nine of the 43 Labour councillors in Brent? Is it nine of the 86 Labour councillors in Manchester, or nine of the 60 Labour councillors in Newham who do not want the police to talk about drugs in schools and charge £53 for neighbourhood watch signs? Is it nine of the 53 Labour councillors in Hackney which has the most appalling record of relations with the police


of any Labour council? Is it nine of the 42 in Haringey or nine of the 29 in Nottingham? We have reached 353 already and we have hardly scratched the surface.
The Government have brought forward a principled and continuing response as part of a steady policy to deal with the problems of law enforcement and criminal justice in Britain. The Bill will be effective in adding a further line of bricks to the wall that the community is building in partnership with the Government and the police against the criminal.
In reality there is always a choice and one thing is perfectly clear: if those who vote tonight to try to deny the Bill a Second Reading are let loose upon the country in Government, they will let loose a devastation of the relationship between the police and the community that will utterly demoralise our community's response to crime, exactly as Labour did when it was last in office.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 219.

Division No. 12]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Forrester, John


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foulkes, George


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Barnett, Guy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barron, Kevin
Freud, Clement


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Blair, Anthony
Hancock, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Home Robertson, John


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Caborn, Richard
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Hon Greville


Clarke, Thomas
John, Brynmor


Clay, Robert
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clelland, David Gordon
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Lambie, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lamond, James


Corbett, Robin
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leighton, Ronald


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Crowther, Stan
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livsey, Richard


Cunningham, Dr John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Deakins, Eric
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dormand, Jack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McTaggart, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Fisher, Mark
Meacher, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Michie, William





Mikardo, Ian
Sheerman, Barry


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Nellist, David
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


O'Brien, William
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Park, George
Soley, Clive


Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pavitt, Laurie
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter
Straw, Jack


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Radice, Giles
Torney, Tom


Randall, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Michael


Richardson, Ms Jo
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Winnick, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woodall, Alec


Robertson, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Ray Powell.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Dickens, Geoffery


Alexander, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Tom
Emery, Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Farr, Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Favell, Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Benyon, William
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blackburn, John
Franks, Cecil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Galley, Roy


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Browne, John
Greenway, Harry


Bruinvels, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cockeram, Eric
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Harvey, Robert


Conway, Derek
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Coombs, Simon
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Cope, John
Hawksley, Warren


Cormack, Patrick
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Corrie, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cranborne, Viscount
Heddle, John


Critchley, Julian
Henderson, Barry


Crouch, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hickmet, Richard






Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, Barry


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powley, John


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Holt, Richard
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howard, Michael
Rost, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Irving, Charles
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jackson, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Silvester, Fred


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sims, Roger


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Key, Robert
Speller, Tony


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spencer, Derek


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Knowles, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Squire, Robin


Latham, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lawrence, Ivan
Steen, Anthony


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lester, Jim
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lyell, Nicholas
Terlezki, Stefan


Malone, Gerald
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Marlow, Antony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, David
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Trippier, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, David


Norris, Steven
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Osborn, Sir John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary





Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Wolfson, Mark


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Woodcock, Michael


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitfield, John
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Michael Portillo.


Winterton, Mrs Ann

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) of any expenses incurred under that Act by a Minister of the Crown; and
(b) of any increases attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and


(2) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums falling to be paid into the Consolidated Fund under section 61 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents.)

MOTOR CYCLE NOISE

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9148/84 and 6766/85 on motor cycle noise; and supports the Government's efforts to obtain stricter noise limits for motor cycles.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Mr. John Stalker

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen]

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The House will remember that during the summer the nation was agog. The suspension from duty of the deputy chief constable of Manchester was national and, because of its context, international news. Sadly, those events have passed into the realms of history. For a host of reasons, it is important that we should not forget the important issues that were raised then—the way in which serious allegations against police officers are investigated and the context in which John Stalker was operating.
The case was both tortuous and twisted. John Stalker was treated very unfairly. For almost a month he was unaware of the charges that had been laid against him. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to take particular note of that point, having regard to any review of procedures. Furthermore, one has to remember the effect upon his family of the massive press speculation. I do not complain about the press speculation. Had it not been for the high profile investigation, I fear that John Stalker would not today be doing his job. He would have disappeared without trace. I, and many others, believe that that would have been a travesty of justice.
John Stalker has been left with a large bill to pay as a result of the legal costs that he ran up during that period. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously whether those legal costs should be defrayed from public funds. I regret that the Greater Manchester police authority has chosen not to pay those funds. Although I understand some of the reasons that were put forward for that decision, it was a mistake which penalises one person and his family out of all proportion. If he had not incurred those costs, this affair would not have had the satisfactory conclusion—in so far as it is satisfactory—that it has had.
Mr. Stalker was first asked to go to Northern Ireland in 1982 when the Royal Ulster Constabulary went on what has been described as a "killing spree". The shooting of Michael Tighe has attracted a lot of publicity in recent months and serious allegations, either that RUC officers, out of loyalty, were covering up, or that there was a deliberate shoot-to-kill policy, have been made.
We do not yet know the conclusion of the reports that have been laid before the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Director of Public Prosecutions there, but it is important to recognise that while John Stalker was involved in Northern Ireland his relations with the Chief Constable there were well known to be extremely strained. The complaint was that co-operation was not forthcoming. We know that, when the interim report was laid before the powers that be—the Chief Constable—with a view to matters being eventually raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the report was sat on for approximately six months. The House is entitled to know why six months had to go by before that report went from the Chief Constable to Barry Shaw, the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is critical that that question should be answered. The conclusion that must be drawn is that that was a deliberate delaying tactic in the hope that the problem would go away.
We know that that interim report contained a severe criticism and a request that Mr. Stalker should be allowed to interview the Chief Constable. We know that he was particularly interested in the whereabouts of the tape that was made of the events when Michael Tighe died. We also know that there was implicit criticism of Sir Philip Myers, the Inspector of Constabulary. All those are serious matters, so the fact that there was a delay reinforces the seriousness of the situation.
I am happy to say that, if there is one person other than the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester who comes out with considerable credit, it is Barry Shaw, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who acted quickly. Because he acted so quickly, we are entitled to know why delays occurred after he had sanctioned Mr. Stalker's requests. He specifically sanctioned the interview of the Chief Constable and his deputy and instructed the Chief Constable to make available the tape or its transcript.
At that time, as I understand it, the deputy chief constable, Mr. Stalker, sought to return to Northern Ireland to pursue his inquiries, but was told by Sir Philip Myers that that was inopportune at that stage. Eventually, after two requests had been turned down, he was booked on to a flight that would have taken him to Ireland on 2 June, but, on 29 May, Mr. Stalker was taken off the inquiry as a result of allegations against him. From that moment he was effectively taken off the inquiry into the RUC. Many continue to believe that there was dirty work at the crossroads.
The reasons put forward for Mr. Stalker being taken off the inquiry essentially related to four matters. One was that a personal associate of his was under investigation for fraud. I must make it clear that even to this day that individual has not been charged with any criminal offence. It was suggested that Mr. Stalker associated with the same individual, and possibly other known criminals and that there was photographic evidence of people in the same room. It was suggested that, while he was on holiday with Kevin Taylor, the yacht on which they were sailing was under observation by the American authorities. The implication was that they were involved in drugs or some other criminal activity.
It was also suggested that Kevin Taylor, through his solicitor, had threatened that if he was charged with offences he would, I think it was said, blow Stalker and his associates out.
Why did matters come to a head then, some five days before Stalker was due to return to Ireland? Why did not these matters arise earlier? In a written answer on 24 October, the Minister said:
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary was advised in October 1985 of the existence of information alleging that a relationship might exist between the deputy chief constable and certain persons whose activities were under investigation in Greater Manchester. No evidence was available to justify any action in respect of this information until May 1986."—[Official Report, 24 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 1018]
It is widely believed, and my information is, that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary knew of those allegations long before October 1985. The only evidence that became available in May 1986 was the photograph that I have mentioned. The inquiry into the RUC was certainly serious, and it is important that we should know what new evidence became available. If it was only one photograph, that cannot be taken very seriously as the damning piece of evidence that would seriously damage Mr. Stalker's career and an important inquiry.
These events took place following a raid on the home of Kevin Taylor. As there are doubts about the background to the matter, we are entitled to know who was aware that the raid was due to take place, who ordered it, and what he expected to find. The allegations about Mr. Stalker's friendship were reported to the chief constable by senior police officers in Greater Manchester as long ago as July 1984. The yacht affair took place in 1981 and was apparently well known in police circles for all that time. Consequently, it is important to know what new evidence became available.
If I was being kind about the Sampson report, I would have to describe it as extremely amateurish. Although it is confidential, I have seen it, as these things always have a wider circulation than intended. At one point in particular, it contains innuendo of the most unpleasant sort, which is unfitting for such a report. The report is simply not up to scratch. At one stage, it talks about an anonymous allegation that the police dropped a criminal action against a person whom Mr. Stalker knew. The Sampson report says:
No further action was taken…the papers have been destroyed…the matter cannot be taken further nor can any comment be made.
There should be further investigation into the claim in The Observer that its inquiries showed that the case was prosecuted in the normal way. Such a fundamental mistake damns that report. Why was there no prescreening of the charges? There was one charge of particular significance. It was alleged that Chief Superintendent Roberts had informed his senior colleagues that Kevin Taylor's solicitor had threatened to blow John Stalker and his associates out. I am assured that Chief Superintendent Roberts vigorously denies that that happened. It would have been simple to ask him then whether that was the case.
John Stalker asked at one stage whether his friendship with Kevin Taylor was prejudicing him. We are led to believe that he was assured at that time that that was not the position and that there was no major criminal investigation into the affairs of Kevin Taylor that would affect Mr. Stalker. We are told—this is something that must be answered—that the Chief Constable was quoted as having mentioned the incident on the Diogenes in 1981 as a matter of some importance and later denied that it was raised by him. All these matters are extremely serious and it is necessary for them to be dealt with.
As for the inquiry into the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the result of the summer interlude was a massive delay. The Minister may say that the delay was reasonable because Mr. Sampson could not conduct an inquiry into John Stalker while at the same time carrying out an inquiry into the RUC, but no progress was made with the RUC inquiry while John Stalker was under investigation. If that is the position, we are entitled to ask why he was not reinstated to conduct the inquiry at the end of his own investigation. If he was crippled by the marginal charges that were laid against him in the end, surely the chief constable of West Yorkshire, given the serious doubts about his own credibility following the report, was even more crippled. I do not think that many people in the North of Ireland will accept the report on that basis.
It seems that Mr. Stalker's deputy, Mr. Thorburn, was almost a victim of guilt by association. He was taken out

of the inquiry, but no charge was laid against him. His position was marginal in terms of the RUC. Was Mr. Thorburn involved in the interviews? Surely he would have been involved in the interviews with the Chief Constable of the RUC and his deputy. I ask the Minister specifically whether those interviews ever took place. That is an inportant part of Mr. Stalker's interim report. Was the Chief Constable of the RUC questioned about the tape? That is a matter of great concern. If he was so questioned, were answers received on where the tape was, or was it discovered who destroyed the tape and under whose orders? These are vital issues in terms of public reassurance.
I am conscious that I have paid tribute to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. I know that his health is not in the finest form and I say specifically that if the Government or anyone else wants to wait for his health to collapse to prevent a trial, that would be a most foolish way of proceeding. I do not think for one second that that is the position, but it must be placed on record that it is critical that all haste is made with the report.
I shall deal with the follow-up to Mr. Stalker's position in Greater Manchester, which is still unsatisfactory. A heavy debt burden has been placed upon him and the personnel committee of the policy authority is talking about attempting to have inquiries conform to the sub judice ruling, which would exclude the press and the kind of publicity that plays such an important role in issues of this sort. I ask the Minister to give a guarantee that that is not in the Government's mind. It is important that in matters such as this the public are aware of what is going on.
At the end of the day, the public will believe in all the conspiracy theories at which I have hinted, in some instances directly and in others not. There is much circumstantial evidence that suggests that there were those who had a motive that caused them to want John Stalker to be somewhere else. Mr. Stalker said at one stage that if "they"—presumably the powers that be—"wanted a whitewash, they had picked the wrong man". It is a matter of great concern that, having recognised that they had picked the wrong man, they chose to remove that man and get someone else to do the job.
Conspiracy theories will not go away unless we have answers to the questions that have been raised this evening and on previous occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Unless those answers are forthcoming, the public will think that something extremely serious has gone amiss in an attempt effectively to pervert the course of justice, involving more than one man.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) deserves congratulation on having raised a matter of considerable importance. He has raised a whole variety of questions, and I am sure that he will understand if in my short speech I can deal with only a small number of them.
I wish to begin by dealing with the question of costs. As the hon. Member for Stretford pointed out, Mr. Stalker has incurred a substantial bill in costs. It amounts to about £21,000. Mr. Stalker has sought the assistance of the Greater Manchester police authority in meeting the legal costs he incurred in the course of the investigation of the


allegations of misconduct made against him. The hon. Member for Stretford will know well of the provisions of the Police Discipline (Senior Officers) Regulations 1985 which provide that if a case of this kind goes to a formal disciplinary inquiry the accused officers' costs, subject to taxation, are met from the police fund. The police authority decided not to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the costs cannot be met under the regulations.
Moreover—this is a matter for the authority—the authority has declined to make a discretionary payment to Mr. Stalker. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, members of the public have contributed to a fund to assist Mr. Stalker to meet his legal costs. Mr. Stalker has applied for the consent of the police authority to accept the money and the police authority has agreed. That is as far as the Home Office can go. Ultimately, it is for the police authority to decide whether it is right for Mr. Stalker to accept money from the public in the way I have described, and the authority has decided that it is right.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Stalker is a constituent of mine? I think that most people would agree that he has gone through an unfortunate time, not just for himself but for his family, and to be faced with a bill of almost £22,000 when, as far as we can understand, he has done nothing wrong is absolutely monstrous. If we believe that British justice is the best in the world, surely there is something that can be done to lift some of the burden from him.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the way he has protected the interests of his constituent Mr. Stalker. I am glad to see him here tonight. It is a tribute to the attention he has paid to his constituent's interests. I cannot help him quite as much as he would like. Ultimately this is a matter that lies within the discretion of the police authority, and it has made its decision. I do not think that I can say anything positive that would assist my hon. Friend.
The conspiracy theory lies behind the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford. The hon. Gentleman is implying—indeed, I think that he screwed himself up to the extent of saying expressly—that there were forces within the Province that contributed, or may have contributed, to the allegations made against Mr. Stalker.
Mr. Sampson, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, was responsible for what is known as the Stalker inquiry and the inquiry into allegations of misconduct by the RUC. The fact that he was in charge of both inquiries gave him the best possible opportunity to decide whether there were any links between the two inquiries. Mr. Sampson stated in his report that he had found no evidence that officers of the RUC or members of the security services had in any way been responsible for the instigation of allegations against Mr. Stalker. That is the current position.
I understand that the hon. Member for Stretford may go further than that. He may suggest, indeed perhaps does suggest, that there should be a further inquiry to determine whether there was a link between the Province and Mr. Stalker. This issue has been considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. My right hon. and learned Friend takes the view that a further inquiry at this stage could be prejudicial to any criminal

proceedings which might arise from the investigation of the conduct of officers of the RUC, which Mr. Sampson was taking over.
The hon. Member for Stretford will appreciate that there are two inquiries and in one sense by far the most important inquiry is the RUC inquiry. It would be a great misfortune, and something that we would not contemplate, if people were to take action now which could prejudice the outcome of the RUC end of the inquiries.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The vital element in these links as to whether the RUC was involved in the Stalker affair is the point about whether Mr. Stalker asked the head of the RUC for tapes which were made at the time of the death of Michael Tighe in Northern Ireland. There have been widespread allegations that the tapes were not handed over and were subsequently destroyed. What has Mr. Sampson to say about that? Who takes the responsibility for the tapes that allegedly were destroyed?

Mr. Hogg: I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask such questions. However, that emphasises the wisdom of what I have just said. There are two inquiries—the inquiry regarding Mr. Stalker and that regarding the RUC. Of the two, the latter is by far the most important. I will neither say nor do anything that may prejudice the outcome of the RUC inquiry. Although I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, his questions are not in the wider interests of anyone. Perhaps in some other place, in the future, another opportunity will arise, but it should not arise now. Questions of the sort being asked now are simply not helpful to the wider issues.

Mr. Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, as this is a very short debate and I have a number of points to make.
We must keep our eye on the ball, and the ball is now the RUC end of the inquiry. I will do nothing to prejudice the outcome of that inquiry or anything that may flow from it. However, I have a nasty feeling that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) may not be so careful.
It might be helpful if I were to set out in some detail in the few minutes that are left to me exactly what happened. In May 1986, the Greater Manchester police authority had drawn to its attention by the chief constable allegations that, during the past six years, the deputy chief constable, Mr. John Stalker had associated with persons in circumstances that were undesirable and that might have placed him under an obligation to them. The police authority appointed the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Mr. Colin Sampson, to investigate the allegations under the supervision of Mr. Ronald Moyle, a deputy chairman of the Police Complaints Authority.
On 26 June, Mr. Sampson sent the Police Complaints Authority an interim report on his investigation. Against a background of press reports that Mr. Stalker was unaware of what had been alleged against him and that the allegations were in any event trivial—points echoed by the hon. Member for Stretford—the authority issued a statement to the effect that it was satisfied with the progress which had been made with the investigation, that the allegations were of sufficient substance to deserve further careful consideration, and that Mr. Stalker had been adequately apprised of their nature. On 2 July the


Greater Manchester police authority suspended Mr. Stalker, having obtained the Police Complaints Authority's agreement to that course of action.
Mr. Sampson completed his report on his investigation on 14 August when he submitted it to the Greater Manchester police authority. Although he recommended that formal disciplinary proceedings be taken in respect of Mr. Stalker's associations with certain individuals and of the alleged misuse of police cars, on 22 August the police authority decided against taking formal disciplinary action and instead advised Mr. Stalker to be
more circumspect in his political and criminal associations.
Thereafter, he was reinstated as deputy chief constable.
What was done was strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations. Great care was taken by the Home Office to ensure that. The hon. Member for Stretford said that Mr. Stalker was unfairly treated, but I leave that to history. However, the police authority was satisfied that there were matters to be investigated. The hon. Gentleman knows what the authority said when it reached a conclusion. If no investigation had been undertaken, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to suggest a cover-up. In a sense, we were on the horns of an impossible dilemma. By "we", I mean the police authority and any other interested body. Allegations were made which, prima facie, were of a kind that needed investigation—and that happened in accordance with the ordinary rules and regulations.
Had that not happened, the hon. Gentleman would have complained. He would have said that allegations had

been made against a very senior police officer suggesting that he was not a man of integrity but that nothing had been done about them. I would have understood the force of that argument. However, in reality, something was done in that the Manchester police authority was acquainted with the allegations, made the determination that it did, undertook an inquiry and reached a conclusion. It was a matter for the authority. It and everyone else was acting in strict accordance with the rules and regulations.
In any case, I do not think that criticisms can be made of the Home Office. One of the interesting points about the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he did not make any substantial allegations against the Home Office. Although in the early stages of the discussion, the press debate and so on, allegations were made against the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as the matter has developed people have realised that the Home Office has acted wholly and utterly properly in this matter.
It is interesting that tonight no substantive allegations have been made. My conclusion is that the Labour party now recognises that the allegations made were wholly unfounded. Much as I like the hon. Gentleman, I should like him even more if he had prefaced his speech with a profound apology to the Home Office. Underpinning his speech was a recognition that what was done had to be done and that there was no criticism to be made by the Government—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.